“Here we are, day two of the Canadian election, and democracy is already taking a beating!”
– Elizabeth May, a few minutes ago
Just when you think Canadian democracy has plumbed the depths, just when you think it can’t possibly get any more Third World-ish: we now hear that the Green Party leader is to be excluded from the televised debates. What regulatory body decided that she should be barred from participating in the single most important event of the campaign? Those peerless arbiters of the public interest, the broadcast networks. Well, they had help: they consulted with the other party leaders.
Got that? The right of the Greens to put their case before the people — and more important, the right of the people to hear their case — is to be decided by the very people with the most obvious vested interest in excluding them: the competition. At the same time, a vital question of electoral fairness has been, effectively, privatized, hostage to the networks’ calculations of what would make for “good TV.”
There are two conclusions that should be drawn from this. One, as a matter of immediate alarm: one way or another, the cozy little broadcaster-major party cartel has to be cracked open — the Greens have already announced their intention to take the matter to court. And two, it is long since past time this matter was taken out of the hands of the networks, and entrenched in the election laws.
Principle would certainly argue in favour of the Greens’ inclusion, with or without their recent acquisition of a former Liberal as their first Member of Parliament: with more than 600,000 votes in the last election, and at around 10 per cent in the last polls, the Greens have broken well clear of the ranks of the fringe parties. But however you come down on that question, we can surely agree that the question should not be decided by people with such glaring conflicts of interest. Whatever the rule on who gets in, it should be set by an impartial body, away from the narrow calculations of financial or partisan gain that inevitably attend the current ad hoc process.
There’s much else that’s wrong with how we do debates. It’s incredible that we are allowed, typically, just one debate in either language — candidates for president in the US must debate literally dozens of times — and utterly wrong that the debates are segregated by language: one for English Canada, and one reserved exclusively for pandering to Quebec.
But that’s for tomorrow. For today, it’s time to raise a little hell: Greens In Now!
Print
Comment
Canadian Business Network 
T. Thwim on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 4:56 am:
Ditto, my friend. Ditto.
Welcome to North Zimbabwestan, where fair play and accountable elections are a thing of the past.
Election laws, irrelevant!
Spending rules, Not for me!
Open debate, hell no!
Not only do we need Green inclusion but we also need more debates and less smarmy lying commercials. Provincial debates might be a few too many, but certainly regional debates or multiple national debates including all Elections Canada funded parties should be the norm. AC is correct this should not be in the hands of the media or involved parties.
The criteria for inclusion in this national leaders’ debate is a joke. The so-called major parties are so because of an undemocratic electoral system. While not being a Green Party supporter, I still do not support its exclusion from any national political debate given the party received 665,876 votes and received no seats in parliament. The Conservatives received 124 seats that averaged 43,305 votes per seat. The actual/potential support of the Green party is likely higher if proportional representation was in effect. The so-called major parties are not eager to democratize the electoral process because of the disproportionate gain they now receive from an electoral system that yields them more support in seats and in government than would be the case under proportional representation.
And Harper’s childish reasoning for eliminating the Green Party from any national debate only reflects his immaturity and lack of confidence in his ability to debate an issue he does not support: the environment. Let him take his bat and ball and go home like the spoiled child he is and allow the remainder to debate. The whole process is a farce and most of the citizens are the real victims and losers as this policy is to maintain the rigid control of the political system by the ruling economic interests.
CS: Let him… go home… and allow the remainder to debate.
MYL: Actually, that’s all Harper could ever do. My understanding of the reporting was “if she’s there, I won’t be.” Only the reporting said that three parties made that position clear (BQ now apparently backpedaling). So he cannot “eliminat[e] the Green Party from any national debate,” he can merely choose to not participate himself.
[...] Certains de mes collègues croient que cet épisode, quelque soit son dénouement, fait la preuve que le Canada devrait se doter d’une commission indépendante pour gérer les débats électoraux. Il me semble que le processus démocratique au Canada est déjà sur-bureaucratisé. Cela dit, je ne suis plus convaincue que les réseaux ont la colonne vertébrale journalistique assez solide pour arbitrer le débat sur les débats. [...]
[...] Democracy takes a beating [...]
Set up several criteria:
1) 5% of vote in last election
2) Official party status as of dissolution of the House
3) Seats in 2 out of 4 regions as of dissolution of the House (or X out of X, depending on how you want to break up the country)
4) Running candidates in 95% of ridings in current election
If your party meets three out of four criteria, your leader gets to participate in national debates.
Then set up regional debates with a much lower criteria to be included.
This would keep the national leaders debate restricted to leaders that at least were trying to be Prime Minister, eliminate purely regional parties from a national debate, and probably lead to a better debate with fewer participants.
Some rules would have to be established for the dissolution/merging/renaming of parties…
I think the standard for being included in the debates should be the same as getting federal funding. If you qualify for one, you qualify for the other.
I think the NDP should drop the word “Democratic” from their name. The irony is just sickening.
David: If you get 15% of the vote of your particular riding, you get federal funding. There needs to be additional criteria, or every elected independant technically deserves a spot in a national debate.
[...] Certains de mes collègues croient que cet épisode, quelque soit son dénouement, fait la preuve que le Canada devrait se doter d’une commission indépendante pour gérer les débats électoraux. Il me semble que le processus démocratique au Canada est déjà sur-bureaucratisé. Cela dit, je ne suis plus convaincue que les réseaux ont la colonne vertébrale journalistique assez solide pour continuer à arbitrer le débat sur les débats. [...]
@ T. Thwim on Sep 8, at 5:31 pm and again Sep 9, at 12:17 pm:
You have to make a distinction between candidate expense reimbursement and party funding. Recognised, registered parties that receive more than 4% (IIRC; the exact % may be diff) get annual funding from the government ($1.75/vote each year or something like).
Is this an arbitrary standard? Yes. Is it reasonable? I’d say yes. As did the Parliament of Canada.
I’m arguing (and I guess David Strbavy is too) that since we have this standard already anyway, for a similar purpose (ie, recognising when a party is mainstream enough to get on-going public funding AS A PARTY, not as individuals), we might reasonably use the same standards inclusion in the debate structure (which itself needn’t be a single pair of all-in debates).
Undemocratic, self-serving, shameful, cowardly, etc. Consistent with my existing impression of Stephen Harper, but I am shocked that Jack Layton (who I actually voted for before) was part of this betrayal of the public trust.
Undecided voter – as in the past, it takes an elected MP in Parliament to participate. This is no different than 2004 or 2006 when the Greens didn’t participate. Actually, one thing has changed, the leader of the Green Party has endorsed Stephane Dion, one of the debate partipants, for Prime Minister.
Ms. May says she will attend the debates nonetheless. That’s good. She can cheer Dion from the bleachers.
Please note that the leader that refused to participate was Steve Harper. He was concerned that May’s affinity for policies similar to the Liberals would have him facing a 2 pronged Liberal attack during the debates. The Greens polled 10 % of the popular vote in the last election. Harper is, in effect disenfranchising anyone who voted Green.
I personally don’t support May’s policies or beliefs but I would defend her right to express them. The last time I checked Canada was still a democracy even if the sitting government would like to see it changed to something they would feel more comfortable with.
Some people (Strbaty, undecided voter, others) are compaining that Harper, Layton, Duceppe want to exclude the Greens.
C’mon! It is their job to try to win the election. If they have the chance to knock out an adversary, they will. You cannot blame them. Why in heck would Layton, Harper, Duceppe do otherwise? You have to blame us! You have to blame this ridiculous bradcasting coalition, which is a cartel that should be illegal. We are the ones that are supposed to hold their feet to the fire. If people want the Greens in the debate, they should demand it, or threaten to park their votes for the Greens, or the Rhinos. If they are not prepared to send their votes elsewhere, then they should stop whining about the Greens.
The fact is, the Greens do not have enough popular support or potential to win in order for this to cost the other parties.
I would be worried for Canadian democracy if the other parties did NOT try to exclude the Greens. Then I would be wondering about the corruption and the collusion.
Andrew,
This may be the first time that I have EVER agreed with you. Thanks for having the cajones to break from the right/left ideological split and call a spade a spade!!!
“The media consortium has made it’s decision” , Harper smugly said.
It’s quite obvious that the Neo-Cons are pulling the corporate puppet consortium strings.
sf: Be careful what you wish for. After fiddling with the election prediction sites, I’ve found that if a good chunk of the NDP voters vote Green in protest (something which may even be possible, as ‘giving a shot to the little guy’ seems to be fairly deep in the NDP psyche) the Liberals get a minority government, even with a Bloc collapse.
[...] 10, 2008 by A.M. Lamey Kudos to conservatives Joe Clark and Andrew Coyne for their principled stands on the Elizabeth May affair. Praise also to Stephane Dion, for being [...]
What Elizabeth May said last year:
“Yes, Stephane Dion would like to see me in the House of Commons and I think that he should be prime minister,” she said, adding with a laugh: “Of course, I’m my first choice for prime minister but he’d be very good as second choice.”
May also vowed to defend Dion’s record and character, calling him a man of “deep integrity and extraordinary character.”
“I admire Stephane Dion enormously. … I think it would be despicable to hide the truth from Canadians when I think Stephane Dion’s a fine person.””
She should be in the bleachers with all the others cheering their favorite candidates on.
(To Jarrid of Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 8:27 am):
Re: Would like to see May in a cheerleader costume
Stéphane Dion is a fine person. I can understand that you have a hard time understanding a relationship between two parties that *isn’t* bellicose and adversarial.
The “belittling” attack ads that the Conservatives have been hitting Mr. Dion with since he was elected leader of the Liberal Party are quite telling of their own character.
Do you agree with Mr. Harper’s decision to drop his “objections”?
[...] that decision was made, Mclean’s columnist Andrew Coyne wrote it was time for Canadians to “raise hell”, and for an independent body to take over the [...]
kim kardashian sex tape [url=http://digg.com/celebrity/KIM_KARDASHIAN_NUDE_SEX_TAPE_NAKED_PLAYBOY_TOPLESS_PICTURES]kim kardashian sex tape[/url] kim kardashian sex tape [url= http://digg.com/celebrity/KIM_KARDASHIAN_NUDE_SEX_TAPE_NAKED_PLAYBOY_TOPLESS_PICTURES ] kim kardashian sex tape [/url]