Current Issue: 18
7th May - 1st September 2010
Latest Comments
No comments found - why not add yours now!
Leeds Student on Twitter
Just a big turn-off?
.
By Hugh Alderwick and Fran Roberts
Article Tags
No tags found for this article.
Related Articles
Sorry - no related articles found!
Similar Articles
The plans were finalised last week for the televised election debates between the leaders of the three major parties. Some say that will wake the electorate from its apathetic slumber, but some think they will have the opposite effect. So this week, we ask: Will the TV election debates be good for democracy?
Current Votes
For
9 votes so far
Vote for this!
Do you agree with this side of the debate? Click below to add your vote to the list!
A recurrent complaint of voters and political commentators (of all allegiances) is policy. What is it, and where is it in the convoluted rhetoric with which we as the public are presented with by our prospective leaders? Many who were not disinterested from the start, have now resolved that politicians are untrustworthy and that the differences between parties are negligible. Will Self, (journalist and nuisance to many politicians he encounters on numerous discussion shows) argues that an “anorexic cigarette paper” could not fit between the main parties on their approach to governing the country. With this dominating disaffection, why vote at all? Because as much as many of us would like to distance ourselves from politics, it isn’t possible. Therefore what is needed is clarity, for the parties to outline what they intend to do with regard to domestic affairs, foreign affairs, and the economy (which is the order of the topics for the debates). A form as direct as having the leaders put side-by-side, individually responding to questions is surely the best way to address the concerns of the nation.
The questions themselves are to be contributed by the public (screened in advance by a panel of journalists) which presents an opportunity for political accountability. Viewers at home will then be able to scrutinize their suggested plans, which after all is crucial to informed voting. The importance of the economy at this time will surely spark debate over what form the cuts will take, something that is politically essential though often evaded. Many uncomfortable issues that are not part of the language of campaigns will be asked if the audience chooses to put them forward. It could be said that the limited number of people observing makes them unrepresentative. The conclusive results of these screenings will however be more significant than the reaction of those in the room. It could be the vote. Ballots will be sent out four days ahead of the first debates, and the impressions garnered will undoubtedly be influential.
It has been argued that the TV debates could distort the approach of the parties, and a mirroring of the US Presidential approach has also been faulted for the possibility of ‘razzle dazzle’. The distinct difference lies in the regulations attached to the UK debates. The formatting has been marked out stringently in 76 rules; time limits on opening remarks by the candidates, silence of the audience except for when addressing questions, and even the set lay out. With this in mind showmanship goes out of the window. If you abide by the idea that the role of Prime Minister is managerial, then surely gaining a perspective on the character of the competitors is essential. It is widely held that Gordon Brown does not perform well in the public eye, culminating in his appearances on YouTube described by one economist commentator as “cack-handed”. Maybe these debates present a chance for him to redeem himself, flash a smile (or not), and for the viewers to pass judgment on his ability to lead. David Cameron is expected to fare better, already seen as competent at presenting a new image of the Conservatives in the media (with the help of the Sun, which backs the Tories). But what about the Liberal Democrats? The fact that Nick Clegg has been afforded equal time is seen as a victory, which will hopefully dispel notions that despite the multitude of candidates, we as voters are constrained. That the exclusion of other parties is detrimental to democracy is already apparent in the opposition party system, revealing a systemic problem within the British parliamentary politics.
However I believe the greatest contribution to democracy is the acknowledgement of the need for a change in how we engage. It’s time to move on from the vague statements of electioneering, and PMQs emulating a wrestling match in which the opponents throw figurative chairs, tag-teaming cabinet members as they go. It’s time for some answers, and maybe even some good television.
Against
7 votes so far
Vote for this!
Do you agree with this side of the debate? Click below to add your vote to the list!
Far from being a long-awaited progression in our electoral process, the introduction of live, presidential style television debates will deliver a massive blow to our already shaky democratic system. They may make good television, but good television doesn’t mean good democracy.
Actually, they probably won’t make great television. There are 76 rules of engagement - fair enough, we need rules, and at least we know them all in advance - but without interaction from the audience (apart from the pre-planned, vetted questions), or even any noise, the debates will simply be scripted, airless and uninspiring. A chance for well rehearsed sound bites, but not really an arena for vibrant political debate. Feigned smiles and the same old hollow rhetoric of radicalism and progressivism, or whatever the new campaign buzzword is, but not anything really meaningful or spontaneous. Most probably dull then. However, this misses the point; being boring isn’t going to be the problem with the debates. They are far more troubling than just being bad news for our evening viewing, they are bad news for our democracy. The main problem with these debates is that they are wholly unrepresentative. Is our vote only credible if we hand it to Labour, Conservatives or the Lib Dems? What if I want to vote Green, or UKIP, or even for the BNP? Is that wrong? It’s not unlikely; a lot of us have voted for them, and will do again, so they surely deserve to be given an equal platform to express their views with the three ‘main’ parties. By excluding minority opinions, we fundamentally undermine our democratic system. 13 of the 76 rules of the debates concentrate on making the audience microcosmic of our society, yet the real focus should be on making the panel properly representative – especially as the audience might as well not even be there. Television is undoubtedly a huge advertisement weapon, so should not be limited unfairly in this way; minority views and parties which deviate right or left of centre should not be denied an equal opportunity to come before the voting public. Especially parties who hold seats in British and European assemblies. The debates simply highlight the centrism which exists within British politics, and go further, to reinforce it. The public are disillusioned because ‘politicians are all the same’, yet the debates will just give us the most similar views, and stifle everything else.
While these debates dent our democracy by being unrepresentative, they also emphasize the modern political culture of personality over policy. Values get left behind in a competition to be the most likeable candidate. Will we buy into Conservative principles because Cameron’s skin glows on their campaign poster? Does being able to cry on television make you a better leader? On both counts I should hope not. But we might not be as rational as we think in our decision making process. Sweating and a lack of makeup was Nixon’s downfall in the first televised presidential debate in 1960 against Kennedy, which arguably turned the tide of public opinion against him, as he failed to impress the huge television audience not on policy, but on style. This resonates today, as image sometimes seems just as important to politicians as policy. It shouldn’t. The fact is, that policy and party should be the central focus of election campaigns, and they are both getting completely and utterly lost.
This personality politics which will underline the debates has led to the diminishing of the principle of collective government, as more and more power is vested in a disproportionately powerful Prime Minister. Having a presidential figure works in the US because they have a completely different system, with an effective congress which can properly overrule and scrutinise, but our parliament is increasingly at the mercy of strong figures who aren’t really accountable to anyone. Think Blair or Thatcher. Emphasis should be shifted back towards local MPs, especially at election time. Town hall debates for all candidates standing within a constituency would offer us a much more valuable opportunity to enrich our electoral process than the debates that will happen this spring.
The debates miss the point. Instead of promoting fairness, they are undemocratic, and serve to highlight and reinforce a modern political culture which sadly looks like it’s here to stay.
This article was written by Hugh Alderwick and Fran Roberts and was uploaded at 10:16am, Monday 15th March 2010.
It was posted in LS1 » The Big Debate » Just a big turn-off?