Why we cancelled the Munk Debate
LEFT VOTERS WITH SMALL BEER WHEN IT COMES TO DEBATES. — GRIFFITHS
The cancellation of the Munk Debate on foreign policy due to Justin Trudeau’s refusal to participate denies voters the only real opportunity they had this election to see his foreign policy record challenged in a substantive and sustained fashion. It has also left voters with small beer when it comes to debates during the writ period. The only time they will see Trudeau debating in English is at the single “official” debate cum panel discussion featuring five moderators and six leaders.
Pundits have played down the significance of Trudeau passing on the Maclean’s and Munk debates. Don’t sitting prime ministers always try to avoid public scrutiny of their policy records? Isn’t campaigning all about controlling the election narrative through scripted announcements, photos- ops and microtargeted ads? If you are the incumbent, minimizing your debate exposure is smart campaign strategy.
There are bigger issues at stake here. We are witnessing this election the culmination of a two- decade phenomena that represents a growing threat to the democratic process: the intrusion of the state into the writ period itself.
Collectively, the government election laws, regulations and bodies that have emerged since the Chrétien years are sprawling in scope. We have steadily clawed back the amount individuals can donate to political parties and leadership campaigns. Corporate and union contributions have been banned. We tightly circumscribe third- party groups’ spending during elections, requiring them to register with Elections Canada and publicly disclose their expenses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is now costing political parties’ platforms during elections. We have a government-appointed and funded commission organizing debates. And, if the Liberals are re- elected, the next election could be covered by a news media receiving $ 100 million in annual government subsidies.
There are many reasons why any one of these policies could be seen as contributing to the holding of free and fair elections. But we need to consider the accumulative weight of state intervention into the writ period on our democracy.
The first casualty is political diversity. The controls, bureaucracy and regulation of elections by government benefits unsurprisingly, the authors, or the incumbent party. The anti- competitive effects of our first- past- thepost electoral system, limits on donations, third- party spending, the myriad of rules and obligations required of “official” parties, all serve to stifle political innovation. It is next to impossible, as Maxime Bernier is fast finding out, to create a new political party capable of winning even one seat in parliament. The Greens are another case in point struggling, campaign after campaign, since 2011 to elect a second MP.
The second casualty is political volatility. State intervention into the writ period has created a padded playpen for the country’s electoral politics to play out. We will never see in Canada the equivalent of Emmanuel Macron’s political movement, which came out of nowhere in 2017 to decimate the mainline French parties. Nor is the likes of the insurgent campaign built and funded by Donald Trump a possibility in Canada. The future of our politics will look much like its past.
The third casualty is political liberty. Less is more is the consequence of increasing state control of our elections. Fewer meaningful political choices. Fewer thirdparty voices. Fewer maverick politicians. Fewer debates. We are fast leaving behind the rough and tumble politics associated with Westminster origins of our polity for the kind of “managed” democracy we rightly criticize in the other countries.
Yes, it was Trudeau’s choice to skip the Munk Debate on foreign policy. Yes, there still will be one English language debate with him participating. But, let’s not fool ourselves. The emergence this election of a state body to organize debates is the latest sign of diminution of our once- freewheeling democracy in favour of more state control and more regulation that advantage the incumbent party and limit the political futures we can contemplate together.
FUTURE OF OUR POLITICS WILL LOOK MUCH LIKE ITS PAST.