The popular introductory politics textbook by Dickerson and Flanagan reads,
"... the main purpose of the debate is not to produce better arguments overall but to generate powerful short stretches of political theatre that can be played over and over on news programs and be incorporated into advertising...[they] need to generate sound bites..."
This is sad but generally true. One would think that a 24 hour news cycle would actually provide room for more open dialogue and the potential for debaters to focus on a discussion rather than repeating a set of sound bites over and over again. So who is to blame for scripted politics? It seems to me that we should all take responsibility. I always find it fascinating that right after a debate, this first question is, "who won?" and "was there a knock out punch?" We should not be waiting for a knock out punch; a real zinger should not decide who governs us. Do we watch to see theatre or do we watch to find out how a party intends to govern?
One of my colleagues argues that in an ideal world a debate should answer the question, "what is the role of government?" This type of question would allow participants, particularly leaders, to argue about the scope of the state and to lay out the principles upon which decisions would be made. Debates should be an opportunity for education.
Rand Dyck, another important Canadian government scholar, argues that "studies show that approximately half of the voters watch the debates, these tend to be well-informed, peer-group opinion leaders who may well influence others who did not tune in." Yet, the evolving world of Twitter and blogs has impacted our interaction with our peers. The questions and answers that candidates give can be sent out into the virtual world as they are being spoken and commentary can begin right away without much reflective practice and critical thought. Our opinions can be shaped by a very small number of commentators. A study done in British Columbia and published in 2005, shows that for example the BC Votes site "was dominated by a relatively small number of users and... the favorite discussion topics were not issues but how parties and leaders were performing." A similar study was published in 2010 in Germany using Twitter as the basis for analysis and, in this case, there was "evidence of lively political debate...[but] this discussion [was] still dominated by a small number of users: only 4 per cent of all users accounted for more than 40 per cent of the messages." Thus even those technologies that we assume can create democratic spaces for dialogue and often places of theatre and sound bites.
So what should we look for in debates? Clearly debates among leaders are different than all candidates debates. Debates among party leaders should do at least three important things. First, leaders should articulate the views of the political party. They should describe the role of government in a liberal democracy and they should outline their party's approach to policy choices. Second, leadership debates should be about the role of the leader him or herself in shaping the party and its platform. And third, it should be about real substantive debate about specific policy issues. I have said before in this column that arguing that the economy is a central issue for British Columbians or that jobs is a key concern for many people does not help voters to determine which policies the government intends to put in place.
All-candidates debates should have a different purpose. Many months ago I wrote about the importance of the nomination processes for political candidates. The fact is that, generally, constituency associations chose the candidates who will run in elections. All candidates debates should be our opportunity to meet the person who will potentially win the riding and then represent diverse political views. Remember, a candidate can win a riding with considerably less than 50 percent of the vote. We need to meet the candidate as an authentic person. And, while they can certainly discuss party policy positions they should get off the party script and demonstrate to us why they should represent us... even if they don't get our vote.
