Therrien’s debate performance positions her as contender

Challenger took on incumbent in front of packed house

We take it for granted that the holding of public debates among candidates should be a requirement in any municipal election campaign. These days, we also take it for granted that the elements of genuine face to face debate – assertion, contention, conjecture, argument, defense, refutation or rebuttal – are not essential to satisfy that requirement. The local practice of debating typically involves candidates sitting side by side without contact, speaking to a neutral questioner as if their competitors weren’t really there. Sponsordriven questions are serial and siloed, which prevents intellectual integration and synthesis. What is lost is wonderfully revelatory information for voters such as a candidate’s ability to think critically; to speak extemporaneously; to manage complexity; and to rise or fall to confrontation.

Peterborough mayoralty candidates Daryl Bennett and Diane Therrien have had a handful of so-called debates during this campaign season, none of which have involved face to face engagement. The most anticipated of these took place last Thursday. Sponsored by the Peterborough Chamber of Commerce, the DBIA and the Women’s Business Network, the serial and siloed setup was again on display. In spite of that format, both candidates chose to break from its constraints and engage with each other in direct rebuttal on five or six occasions – something approaching real debate.

They may have both perceived the higher stakes that accompany the approach of election day or they may have both reached a point of frustration typical of distant snipers. In any event, the debate was the better for it.

The decision of the candidates to engage directly with each other produced a number of valuable insights, primarily about candidate Therrien. First, she was willing to jab. She took on Bennett with accusations about not attending an important housing conference; about being accessible only to people who had his private phone number; and for having a sign outside his office that reads, “no entry” (even though the sign is intended to provide security for city staff ). This was skillful and slightly cheeky hyperbole to which Bennett did not respond in kind.

Second, Therrien was able to play the role of the outsider. She successfully targeted the establishment at city hall even though she is part of it – a stance that was not challenged by Bennett. She also presented as the hopeful idealist in contrast to her pragmatic and realistic opponent.

This is an effective positioning that permits both the taking of credit and the assignment of blame as the situation warrants – the optimum space to occupy in a debate.

Third, Therrien was routinely on the offensive, pitching change and improvement. Bennett, who chose not to force her to defend herself on any matter – even though her notable opposition to development projects is an easy target – was frequently on the defensive, rationalizing city council decisions. Offense tends to motivate hopeful voters in ways that defence cannot.

Finally, the overall messaging from Therrien had to do with good things we should do, while Bennett’s was largely focused on good things we have done. One is about tomorrow; the other is about yesterday. As long as voters have grievances and can identify with a person who they believe can remedy them, the call for more good things will always trump the call for good things past.

Therrien has made demonstrable progress in her presentation as a politician since her campaign launch in May. On this night she was composed, assured, informed and able to rise to the occasion.

She stood up to answer the questions put to her, symbolic of a rise in her performance that now positions her as a contender.

One is about tomorrow; the other is about yesterday