Televised Debates: The Pros and Cons

In the spirit of honesty and to counter accusations that I am being subtly biased, let me be overtly candid – I am a strong supporter of televised political debates as a tool to enrich our democracy. So it came as an early Christmas gift to hear that the three main political parties have agreed to stage three televised debates during the general election campaign, to be aired on ITV, Sky and the BBC, respectively.

The idea of a ‘Golden Age’ of politics is a nostalgic myth but this year has been particularly damaging for trust in our elected representatives and Parliament more broadly. These debates will go some way towards reviving our stagnant politics and while David Dimbleby is no Simon Cowell, the first-time novelty of these events and their lack of precedent guarantees very high viewing figures.

But are we being a little too giddy; has the excitement of the festive period clouded our perspective; are televised debates really the panacea to our political apathy and cynicism?

Comparisons are often drawn with the United States, where Presidential Debates have rapidly grown in significance since the now infamous face-off between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon during the 1960 Presidential election (although there was a hiatus in televised debates until 1976). It’s a worthwhile comparison to make because while we have very different electoral systems it affords us the opportunity to glimpse into what might become of these debates in future general elections, for it will be near impossible to roll-back this initiative now that the horse has been allowed to bolt.

Initially the debates were used as a forum for presidential candidates to deliver that elusive ‘knockout blow’, to expose the weaknesses and inexperience of their rivals, or to quell doubts about their own; Ford-Carter, Carter-Reagan, Reagan-Mondale (2nd debate). Eventually – and perhaps inevitably – the televised debates became more about avoiding a fatal error than they did about who won the arguments. Much like my school’s approach to A-Levels, the presidential candidates would be briefed and rehearsed on how not to fail their tests. The result? I passed my A-Levels and Presidential debates became stale and predictable. The 2008 debates were notable for little more than Senator McCain’s reference to ‘that guy’.

The inaugural event in 2010 will be exciting, it will feel fresh and different and the media will dissect every word, every stern look and whether anyone tripped over a banana skin. However, I fear that our own debates will eventually suffer a similar bland fate to that of the Americans. The fact that Tony Blair – the telegenic, polished one – declined John Mayor’s proposal for a debate in 1997 tells you that he considered it too risky an opportunity to accept given his party’s lead in the polls; caution won.
Gordon and the Labour Party are clearly in a desperate situation and this throw of the dice, whilst calculated, was one of the few weapons left in No. 10′s armoury with which they hope they can further reduce the Conservative Party poll lead by exposing the supposed inexperience of the Opposition Leader. Cameron will play defensively, Brown will huff and puff but blow no-ones house down, and Clegg will valiantly endeavour to play the role of the maverick outsider. But what of the next general election, or the one thereafter, where the polls are much closer and all the main candidates have more to lose than they could hope to gain? Will the debates became another piece of predictable Westminster fare or am I being a grinch and will the arrival of these debates provide the tonic we need to help revitalise our politics for years to come?