Election debates would improve the quality of our politicians

THE campaign for the UK general election, which brings voters to the polls a month from now, officially kicked off this week with a television debate by political party leaders that seemed to confuse rather than enlighten voters.

Great Britain, one of the world’s oldest democracies, is still an upstart in these matters, this being only the second time election debates have been held in the country. In the US, televised presidential election debates have been a given since John Kennedy sparred with Richard Nixon in 1960.

It’s been fascinating to watch British political parties gingerly dip their metaphorical toes in the water. There is a lot at stake. There’s no way of knowing whether the decision to take part in such debates will advance or scupper well-laid plans. If a party takes part, it opens itself to attacks. Can it retain control of its message?

The drive to hold election debates in the UK has been led, not surprisingly, by broadcasters, who may have been feeling slightly left out of the political influence wielded by their US counterparts.

The broadcasters are not only competing with one another; their agenda is different from that of the political parties. That makes it difficult to come up with a schedule acceptable to all. Circumstances determine the tactics to be adopted. Prime Minister David Cameron, for instance, flatly rejected a face-to-face debate with his main rival, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband.

Yet four years ago Cameron, then in opposition, was eager to take on the then prime minister Gordon Brown, who had to be dragooned into taking part in the debate.

Brown went on to lose the election, of course, but Cameron missed the success that he thought was his for the taking. The debates instead catapulted Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats and a peripheral figure in UK politics, into the position of a kingmaker who decided the fate of a hung parliament.

Now deputy prime minister, Clegg is destined to be consigned back to obscurity, if not oblivion.

Cameron is the incumbent with a record in government, which Miliband is obviously eager to attack. But Cameron learnt from Brown’s experience and has thus far refused any direct confrontation with Miliband. Instead, he opted for a debate in which all seven party leaders were accommodated.

That way he was able to disappear into the crowd. Miliband had few opportunities to take direct aim at him. The Labour leader also had to contend with attacks of his own from the other participants. It wasn’t pretty, but it worked for Cameron.

Cameron probably wouldn’t have got away with that sort of oneupmanship in the US. When the then US president George Bush snr tried to play hardball during the 1992 presidential election, Bill Clinton’s campaign sent people dressed as chickens to follow him around the country. He quickly got the message, and relented. American voters, too, expect everybody who seeks political office to take part in such debates.

Debates demand a range of skills from politicians. Eloquence is fine, but so is the ability to think on one’s feet or have the flair for quick repartee to wrong-foot an opponent.

The way a candidate is dressed, his or her demeanour, the appearance of annoyance or irritation — these can derail a career in seconds. Debates bring candidates into living rooms, where audience dynamics or interactions are different from, say, at a political rally. Voters can easily be swayed by watching acquaintances or family members. Every little fault or infraction is magnified.

Debates have altered the nature of political campaigns; they have also changed political fortunes and the course of history. It is generally believed, for instance, that Kennedy, a 43-year-old junior senator, would not have defeated vice-president Nixon in 1960 were it not for their performances in the debates.

Nixon looked gaunt, harassed and sweaty, while the handsome Kennedy was articulate, calm and confident.

In the 1992 US presidential debate, Bush kept glancing at his watch, which was seen as a sign of either boredom or a desire to be somewhere else. He was also at sea when asked what the price of milk was. The general verdict was that he was out of touch. On such mundane issues often hangs the destiny of mankind. Bush went on to lose to Clinton.

Presidential debates are also becoming the norm in countries such as Ghana, Kenya and Zambia. South Africa is still coy about entering the fray. President Jacob Zuma refused an invitation to spar with DA leader Helen Zille in the last elections. He’d much rather sing than debate.

Zuma is obviously a poor debater, but there is another, more important, calculation: it’s often the smaller parties that stand to gain in such debates. The ANC is still profiting from yesterday’s “struggle” dividends. The future can wait.

Televised election debates would definitely change the nature of our politics and improve the quality of the men and women who are drawn to the process. Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.timeslive.co.za