Ê
 






  


 



   
 
’
  

A televised debate among federal political leaders at election time has become a fixture
of our democratic system. But the manner in which these debates are structured leaves
much to be desired. Improvements are in order if public and media interest is to be
strengthened.
Over thirty years ago ± when these debates were becoming institutionalized during the
federal election campaigns of 1979, 1984, and 1988 ± the format featured one-on-one
debates among the principal contenders. The public was well engaged ± most viewers
stayed with the debates until the end ± and the television networks were relatively
satisfied as well.
The 2006 debate, however, was strongly criticized for its bar-room brawl quality and its
failure to illuminate genuine choices for the voters. Again, the 2008 debate was a chaotic
fiasco ± not so much the fault of the participants as that of the format.
First, the leaders were seated ± an appropriate posture if one is engaged in an interview or
a collegial dialogue, but an unnatural posture if one is truly debating. If you are to
participate in a debate in the House of Commons, and you remain sitting, the Speaker
will not even recognize you. And if you are participating in a formal debate at a
university (such debates, properly organized, still have the capacity to attract lively
interest from young people) and you remain seated, someone in the crowd will yell
³Stand up!´
Second, in the 2008 leaders¶ debate there were five participants, all trying to talk at once,
supposedly to each other but in fact each primarily trying to engage the Prime Minister. If
what the opposition leaders are really trying to achieve is firstly one-on-one engagement
with the Prime Minister, and secondly one-on-one engagement with each other, why not
accommodate them by returning to the ³head-to-head´ format which has worked
reasonably well in the earlier debates. To do so will enable a fuller, richer exploration of
key issues and the contrast between the positions of the respective parties.
Thirdly, and most seriously, leaders¶ debates organized in the 2008 format, which are
chaotic, fail to showcase the distinctive positions and abilities of the participants, and
resolve little, contribute to the so called ³democracy deficit.´ Like Question Period as
presently conducted in the House of Commons, they tend to discredit rather than enhance
democratic discourse. While more Canadians initially tuned in to the televised leaders¶
debate in 2008 than to any other communication event associated with that election, few
stayed to the end and the voter turnout in that election was the lowest in Canadian
history.

c
·xecutives of Canada¶s television networks must dread the day when they will be
approached to carry yet another leaders¶ debate in anticipation of a possible federal
election this year. If they express a lack of enthusiasm, they will be accused of thwarting
the democratic process; if they accede to another debate like the 2008 debate, they will
see ratings plunge shortly after the debate commences and be accused of contributing to
the democracy deficit rather than alleviating it.
However the other details of the next leaders¶ debate are organized, I am personally
convinced that one- on-one debates will be more productive and satisfying from the
standpoint of the public, the media, and the participants themselves than the 2008 format.
The best brains among the networks, the communications industry, and the parties should
be applying themselves to this challenge ± the sooner the better if the objective is to raise
the quality of democratic discourse in Canada¶s next federal election.
i