p2pnet news view Politics | P2P:- In the US, the presidential election campaigns are getting serious.

In Canada, they’re getting silly.

Canada has three main political parties — Jack Layton’s New Democrats, Stéphane Dion’s Liberal’s, and George W. Harper’s Conservatives.

There is, though, an important fourth national group with a highly vocal and extremely articulate leader whose supporters are more than capable of influencing events: Elizabeth May’s Green Party.

And then there’s Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois.

As in America, with a federal election nigh, Canadians expect to see the political leaders debating each other on TV. But if powerful vested interests have their way, that’s not going to happen —- at least, not with everyone taking part.

In a Toronto Star comment post, Warren Dalton sums it up like this »»»

School started just over a week ago, and it took that long for the schoolyard bullies to find a new target, Elizabeth May, the new kid on the block. She just wants to join in and play but the bullies, led by the arrogant Stephen Harper, won’t let her. In fact, if May is allowed to play, Harper threatens to take his ball and go home so that no one can play. The others, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe also threaten to not participate if she joins the game. For his part, Stéphane Dion wants May to play, but he won’t play if Harper doesn’t play. It sounds exactly like children bickering in the schoolyard. The debates should include all party leaders so that the voters can decide for themselves who to vote for in this unnecessary election. Parliament has become dysfunctional because the leaders behave like spoiled children, more interested in insulting each other than solving Canada’s problems.

Kelly McParland writes in the National Post »»»

As the Green party is learning the hard way, election debates are arranged by the Orwellian sounding “Broadcasting Consortium.” This group is made up of TV executives from the five main networks. They alone are responsible for negotiating with the political parties the format of the debates, who is included and their frequency. Their meetings are secret, as is their decision-making process.

Another serious problem with the current system is the control it gives to TV programmers alone to set the agenda and content of the debates. In the United States, on the other hand, several of the U.S. primary debates were broadcast on YouTube — and they were the ones that drew the largest number of viewers under the age of 30.

Given the glaring defects in our debate system — and their importance to our democracy — it is high time Canada joined countries such as the United States and France, and established an independent election-debates commission.

Says former Canadian prime minister Joe Clark in the Globe and Mail »»»

We’re not talking about the Rhinoceros Party. In the 2006 general election, the Greens won 665,940 votes, nearly 5 per cent of the total. Polls published this month by Segma, Ekos and Environics indicate that support for the Greens runs between 7 per cent and 10 per cent, even though the party has never been allowed to make its case in a national leaders debate. In nine provinces and three territories, the Greens have much more support than the Bloc Québécois, which is not only invited to the debates but has the power to veto other participants.

No law forbids Ms. May from joining the other leaders in a televised debate, just as no law forbade Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain from launching their improbable campaigns for a presidential nomination. Instead, the rules that keep her out are determined, in effect, by the political parties that are already in. Technically, the decision is taken by a consortium of the broadcasters who would carry the program; but, in announcing the decision to shut out Ms. May, that consortium has made it clear that the real veto is exercised by the other political parties.

So, it’s a club, whose members set their own rules.

Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium, is quoted as saying that three parties - those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe - all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, “and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates.”

That’s blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.

I am not a supporter of any of the existing federal parties, including the Greens. But I am alarmed, and surprised, by how tightly the government now controls Parliament, how easily parties put their own interest ahead of the public interest, and how mean our public debate has become. We have to break that pattern, and one way to begin would be with a more inclusive leaders debate. I urge more Canadians to press these three leaders, and the broadcasting consortium they hide behind, to reconsider their exclusionary decision.

“For Canadians concerned about democracy,” Clark adds, “the question is not why the Green Party should be let in.

“The question is: Why should the Greens be kept out?”

Closed-door discussions and secrecy

Meanwhile, the Greens are calling for a public referendum.

“The Green Party is calling for transparency on why Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is excluded from the televised leaders’ debates and is formally requesting the broadcast consortium to reconvene with all the parties present in public to determine who is responsible for the exclusion of the Green Party from the leaders’ debates,” says a press statement.

In it, “The broadcast consortium has laid blame squarely on the political parties for barring me from debating, yet the political parties claim the decision is entirely up to the consortium,” says May.

“The Green Party proposes that a consortium meeting be held in public, with all players at the table, so that the question of who is responsible for this anti-democratic decision can be made clear.”

Closed-door discussions and secrecy don’t equal democracy, she states, adding:

“The consortium and other political parties must provide clarity to Canadians, the vast majority of whom want to see me in the debates. We suggest public meeting, including the Greens this time, to clear the air.”

And the Net can make the difference.

Jon Newton - p2pnet

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pm and is filed under Politics, P2P, Mobiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2377 times