Notwithstanding the Sizzle

posted by fidelis

Now that the final round of debates have taken place and the platforms are being released there seems to be a firming up of voters' intentions as we move towards the last two weeks of the Federal Election. Canadians' attention is concentrated on the outcome, especially given what now appears to be a shift in voter opinion and in the possible outcome on January 23rd. What is the cause of this? While, much can made of the dynamics of election campaigns, including stumbles, gaffes and revelations of human folly (and these can be entertaining to watch), I think there may be a more prosaic explanation.

Many people have complained in previous elections that the sizzle of showbiz often overwhelms any careful discussion of public policy. Indeed, many will recall former Prime Minister Kim Campbell's comment that "An election is no time to discuss serious issues." As a result, political debate has become an exercise in shouting prejudices and smears. Yet we have seen a desire to restore mature debate. Pointedly, The Toronto Star, in an editorial today . lauds the revised debate format used in this campaign, especially in the debates this week. Ironically, simply using a single seasoned journalist, rather than, in a bid for democratic participation, a panel of questioners, to facilitate the debate seems to be a good way to run these things. For one thing, it allows for an efficient management of the discussion; it allows a balance between politicians making prepared statements on party policy and yet allowing responses to others without either the disconnected, and frankly boring, speech-making of the December debates, or the wild crosstalk and free-for-all that Canadians recall from the last campaign.

A good example of this was the simple, but very import exchange in Monday's English language debate between Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Mr Martin had prepared a surprise, offering in the middle of the debate to repeal the Notwithstanding clause (that allows governments to override court decisions). He then invited Mr Harper to do the same. Thanks to the moderator's careful assurance for the other participants to respond, Mr Harper was able to clearly articulate his disagreement with Mr Martin. Why was this important? Since that debate, Mr Martin has been criticized forcefully across the country for his (what now appears to be desperate) policy statement. Moreover, much of this criticism seems only to have served to bring together Mr Harper's voters (older males with above-average incomes from smaller urban centres, including Quebec) while not doing much to rally Mr Martin's own much-needed constituency. In fact, concerns about the policy have even been expressed from those Mr Martin clearly expected to agree with him (for example, see comments from the Toronto Star "Voices" section from January 9th:
If the Prime Minister thought that he would trump Stephen Harper in the "values" debate, it would seem to have backfired (see the rise in Mr Martin's "negative" ratings, including in Quebec over the last few days:

Sometimes, at least, it is not the sizzle that really matters, but the steak: by simply allowing voices to be clearly heard, the new debate format has made this a better and possibly more significant election. For those of us interested in real policy discussions, that is a relief.