Televised debates

PRIME Minister Stephen Harper has justified his rapid retreat from offering a personal debate with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff with a fallacy that should not go unchallenged. Less than 24 hours after making the surprise proposal, Harper said Thursday that he will only take part in the two debates, one in English and one in French, set up by the consortium of television broadcasters and their decision was to stick with the conventional format that provides equal time to the leaders of the four parties with sitting members of parliament. The fallacy is that the broadcasters dictate the terms of the debate. The format is negotiated between the consortium and the political parties. The nature of these negotiations is that the political leaders with the most seats have the most clout, as was evidenced by the ill-advised decision to shut out Green party leader Elizabeth May. All party leaders are complicit in this charade that somehow they shouldn't be held responsible for the decision by the broadcasting executives to exclude May. They have all publicly supported her taking part in the debate, yet in private negotiations their representatives have at the very least gone along with a decision to keep her out. May is not being included for the same basic reason that Harper will not debate Ignatieff: the other leaders simply don't want it to happen. Blaming the consortium is a convenient way of dodging responsibility for a decision that is ultimately in their hands. The issue is muddied somewhat in respect to whether May is not invited because her party has yet to elect any MPs. Even so, she should participate if only because almost a million Canadians voted for a Green candidate in 2008 and it is one of five parties that has reached the threshold for taxpayer-funded financial support. …There is nothing cloudy about the case for a one-on-one debate between Ignatieff and Harper. One of these party leaders will be the head of Canada's next government. …Harper may not be interested in squaring off with Ignatieff, but Canadians who will have to choose between the two have a clear and compelling interest in seeing how well they are able to stand up to such a direct challenge. …At a time when voter turnout has continued to sag, the fact that such a debate would be entertaining can't hurt. An intense, informative debate has the potential to draw the kind of audience needed to get interested again in the crucial choice of who will be Canada's next prime minister. — (April 1)