Less talk, more debates
Almost since the day he became prime minister, Stephen Harper has sought to reshape the media landscape as it intersects with Ottawa’s traditional political process. While politicians and the press are natural adversaries, Harper has arguably done less than his predecessors to mask his impatience with the mainstream media’s traditional role as a filter between government and voters. He gives few press conferences, answers few questions and strictly limits access. He would prefer to deliver his message his way, and in an age of social media and crumbling communications barriers, he has been quick to seize on opportunities to do so.
It’s not surprising, then, that the Conservatives now want to jettison the usual approach to campaign debates and substitute their own version. Party representatives recently announced Harper will not take part in the traditional debates organized by Canada’s major broadcasters — known somewhat ponderously as “the consortium” — as has been the case in elections past. Instead they have been negotiating debates on an individual basis, agreeing to four so far, with sponsors ranging from Maclean’s magazine to Google to Toronto’s Munk Centre. (Postmedia, parent company of the National Post, is currently in negotiations to sponsor a fifth debate.)
The decision to spurn the consortium has set off the usual outburst of angst and name-calling in Ottawa, which dislikes change in general and sees any official meddling with tradition as intrinsically nefarious, especially if it originates with the Conservatives. While NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has signalled a willingness to participate in the new format, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has so far not committed to any of the four non-consortium debates. Instead, his top aides have attacked the Tories, arguing that they’re seeking to limit the potential audience by bypassing the big broadcasters. “Only the broadcast group has the ability to reach all Canadians,” the party said Thursday, which is simple balderdash in the age of the Internet, online streaming and pervasive social media. In any case, the Conservatives have said the networks are welcome to cover the debates; they will simply no longer have the exclusive organizational control they once enjoyed.
A more legitimate grounds for complaint is the Conservatives’ ability to set the terms for debates, now that the consortium’s monopoly has been broken, based on the sponsors’ eagerness to have the prime minister participate: by virtue of his position, the biggest draw. On Wednesday, for example, Harper agreed to a debate sponsored by the Globe and Mail, to focus on the economy — perhaps the government’s strongest electoral asset — in the prime minister’s Calgary backyard. As a counter-move, on Thursday the Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc Quebecois agreed to a package of debates run by the consortium, whether the Conservatives appear or not.
We believe strongly that the more debates, the better for voters. We also believe such a key part of the democratic process should not be the private preserve of a small cabal of traditional broadcasters: objectionable in principle, it has proved deeply unsatisfactory in practice — too few debates, and too little of substance discussed. To the extent that the current scramble for position has opened up new possibilities and new formats, that is all to the good.
Nonetheless, we are uncomfortable leaving the organization of the debates to what amounts to a multiplayer game of chicken, with each of the leaders threatening to boycott one or another of the debates, while organizers vow to leave an empty chair in their place if they do. Elections are serious affairs, and debates are too critical a part of them to be subject to last-minute horsetrading. We understand that parties are naturally going to press their advantage, using whatever bargaining power they possess. But it is not at all clear that either fairness or the public interest will be served in the end.
The Liberals want an independent commission set up to handle future debates, and promise to establish one if they form a government. It’s a commendable position and one the other parties should adopt as well. Voters and candidates alike are best served by a professional, dignified and predictable process that puts the emphasis on informing voters rather than partisan rancour. A permanent process, established well in advance of any election with all-party consultation, could set rules that were fair to all, and known to all: as such, it would be harder to back out of.
However the current bickering plays out, then, this should be the last election in which so much of the debate … is about the debates.
Debates are too critical to be subject to last-minute horsetrading