on democratic leader’s debates

It appears as though 3 of the 4 major national political parties have balked at the suggestion that Elizabeth May represent the Green Party at the televised leader’s debates.

The Green Party is a valid national party, now with a seat in Parliament (although the member was previously an Independent who switched to Green, not an elected Green MP).

According to The Canadian Press,

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday that letting May into the debate would be in essence allowing a second Liberal candidate to participate.

He said it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate.

Really?

Harper gets to decide on who gets to participate in the debate based on his assessment of the uniqueness of their platform? That’s not how democracy works. The leader does not get to decide which voices get to be heard, or which issues will be discussed.

All this exercise tells me is that the televised leader’s debates are nothing more than sanitized synchronous press releases. If it was a valid and honest debate, the Green party would be represented (as well as, perhaps, a few other parties).

And Harper wasn’t the only leader to threaten to boycott the debates if the Greens were allowed to participate. The only leader that welcomed May was Stephane Dion. Which means that Layton and Duceppe are right up there with Harper in avoiding a real, meaningful, democratic debate.

Threatening to boycott a debate if another valid candidate is invited to participate? Childish and undemocratic.

Update: And for the Canadian media outlets that decided to not invite May to the debate so as not to upset the other candidates – you just lost any shred of objectivity. You are no longer a separate, objective, impartial media. You are nothing more than media outlets. You are not journalists, you are not unbiased. You are a press-release distribution network. The right thing to do would have been to respond to the 3 candidates that they are welcome to participate in the debate, and would be missed by the voting public if they choose not to show up.

Update 2: w00t! score one for democracy in Canada! The Green Party will be at the debates!

6 thoughts on “on democratic leader’s debates”

  1. It seems to me this whole campaign is going to be like that – you have to wonder about Harper saying things like that because the Greens are “in” using the same rules that allowed the Reform Party in when they were new and had a member after someone crossed the floor.

    I’m becoming so disillusioned with both federal and provincial politics that it is not even funny… but maybe because Alberta is the bluest place on the planet.

  3. Yeah. Lessig’s definitely onto something big with his fight against corruption of the political process. Allowing candidates to dictate who gets to participate, out of fear of losing advertising revenue for the networks carrying the “debates” is just plain reprehensible.

  4. D’Arcy- I’m not sure what you people up North have for “debates”- but down here, it’s nothing more than a game show. No back and forth- no questions from one candidate to another. The art of “debate” is all but forgotten.
    We too, have people who believe they should decide who gets to debate- hell, we have stupid rules that prevent people from being on the ballot, or having their party listed next to their names. What people forget is we don’t really have democracy- we have representation. When we vote, we actually give our voice to someone else to act for us by proxy- and then we can’t sue them for false advertising.
    My best indicator of who is worthy of my vote anymore- is who can raise the most money in the smallest increments. If the candidate’s average donor is giving $25- I trust them more than someone getting an average donation of $1000.

  5. the debates are gong shows up here, too. scripted, controlled, sterile. that doesn’t mean we can’t demand better.

    representation was adopted because we couldn’t all travel to Ottawa (or Washington, or London, or…) and fit in a room to listen and cast a ballot. those physical constraints are not valid anymore. we can have a true democracy if we want it.

    unfortunately, people really don’t seem to want a true democracy. it would be too much work. much easier to forfeit any real voice to “the government” (even though _we_ are “the government”).

    I’ll stop before I descend into full-on rant mode, though… 🙂

Comments are closed.