Much Ado about Televised Debates

Finally stepping up to the plate, all three leaders of the main political parties have agreed to take part in a series of three televised debates in the general election campaign next year.

For those people who take an interest in politics, the initial reaction to this development is positive; any initiative that could reinvigorate public debate and interest in the real issues in the current political quagmire should be grasped at with both hands. Moreover, it could bypass the tendency of the print media in particular to confine most of their political coverage to reporting trivial matters, sniffing out personal scandal, and at election time, focusing on the race to power. In contrast, these television debates could provide an opportunity for parties to lay out their policies without media interference and hence allow people to make an informed judgements about the stances of the main parties.

However, it seems that for many the debates have come too late. A succession of political scandals, most importantly the MPs’ expenses debacle that still rumbles on, have turned many off politics and no amount of glitzy, staged events could persuade them otherwise. The comments in reply to the Times’s piece on the planned debates are illustrative of peoples’ cynicism; remarks are overwhelmingly negative to the point that one contributor declared he would book a Spring holiday so as to avoid having to watch the leaders. Any dreams of the political parties that these events will change minds or encourage more people to turn out appear misplaced.

MPs and candidates will not welcome this focus on national politics either. Local campaigners will more than ever want to focus on local records and attributes of their candidate, often stressing their lack of link to the political classes as an essential part of their appeal. So for them, having Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg stealing the limelight and encouraging people to vote on the basis of leaders’ performances does nothing to help their fight for to keep or obtain seats.

From democracy’s point of view, this is not necessarily a welcome change either. If, as some predict, the debates do not encourage more people to turn out and vote, then their only effect could be to move our parliamentary democracy further towards becoming a presidential one, a phenomenon described by commentators as an ‘Elected Dictatorship’. Considering peoples’ objections to ex-PM Tony Blair obtaining too much power whilst in office, it seems that the debates, as events that clearly put leaders at the forefront, will not help get away from this image of an all-powerful leader.

Democracy is further hindered by the absence of smaller parties’ leaders in the line up. This perpetuates the ‘undemocratic’ nature of our voting system, which gives the impression that it is only worth voting for one of the three main parties as others have no chance of obtaining power. The Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymrus’ fears of exclusion have been partly allayed by the plan for separate debates for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and leader of the SNP, is sure to continue to assert his right to be in the main line up.

Consequently, even though this innovation in British politics seems exciting for those among us who relish the prospect of a nail-biting election campaign, (that might just be me of course), if one digs deeper then there are actually a great many downfalls to the idea and the whole scheme could backfire spectacularly, especially if the vast majority of the public simply choose not to watch them.

This is my first attempt at starting a political discussion, feel free to let me know what you think!