Why general election TV debates that parody democracy are dangerous

I watched half an hour of the US presidential debate and it was awful to behold. If it had been a boxing match, the referee would have called halt after the second round and disqualified both of them. In the red corner, a vile bully for whom no blow is too low. In the blue, a puggled old pro who clearly has had one fight too many. This is the dilemma which Americans are now confronted with unless something merciful is done.

The Republicans are historically guilty for having sold their soul to a criminal vulgarian. But the hierarchy of the Democratic Party has even more to answer for. They had four years to think about it, knowing exactly the risk incurred by relying on Joe Biden to make it into the ring, and did nothing to pre-empt it.

That gamble has comprehensively failed in the most public and humiliating way. Nobody could have looked at the President in this debate and said with confidence: “Here is a man who will still be around, fully compos mentis, four and a half years from now”. And that is a pretty basic test.

Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak clash during the BBC election debate (Picture: Jeff Overs/BBC via Getty Images)

For the sake of Biden, decent Americans and the world, surely the Democrats will act now to create a contest which might stop Trump. If Biden is forced or allowed to stagger on until November, then the bully will bluster his way back into the kernel of a democracy he was willing to destroy.

He who shouts loudest ‘wins’

All of that is the bad news which it has taken a televised debate to bring to a head. Perhaps that should be regarded as the debate serving a useful purpose, albeit in a deeply unpleasant way. It also makes it timely to ask what useful purpose our own televised “leaders’ debates” have contributed to either democracy or enlightenment?

The very word debate, which implies the cut and thrust of opposing ideas, has been debased during this campaign by reliance on variations of a formula in which he who shouts loudest and displays most ignorance of basic courtesies is declared “winner”. It is a parody of what voters are entitled to and many hope for.

One star! Wince at Joyce McMillan's scathing review of the Sunak vs Starmer show

Younger voters in particular are entitled to ask: “Is this really what politics and democracy are about? Is this the best they can come up with? And is it really worth paying attention?” Much of the blame for all that lies with politicians and advisers but the outcome is pretty much guaranteed by rules of engagement which hold viewers in contempt.

Tell us what you have to say in 45 seconds, they demand, and then everyone can shout at one another. It is intellectually impoverished and designed to reduce political debate to a lowest common denominator. The Atlanta format at least offered one partial solution – make sure only one microphone is working at a time!

Complete lack of humour

Forget for the moment the intellectual calibre or coherence of what was said by Trump or Biden. At least they each had the chance to say it, in more than a few sentences without being interrupted or talked over which is now the standard measure of success in our own non-debates.

Was it always like this, even within the television age? I don’t think so. There was an expectation of informed discussion, an ability to score genuine points over opponents and, dare I say it, humour which has been wholly absent from these so-called debates. Spontaneity is another dirty word; just stick to the script and repeat it over and over again.

That is what the party media handlers ordain in order to minimise risk but broadcasters are not obliged to accommodate it. If there really is a mission to inform through debate then the format of these events must go beyond the superficialities of shouting matches, which have turned so many people off in this campaign.

It’s revealing to look at some of the subjects that have hardly been mentioned at all in the last six weeks. For example, I have a particular interest in the practicalities of the “just transition” promised for energy policy. It’s hugely important and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on it as well as environmental credentials.

By now, it should not only be possible but obligatory for party leaders to spell out in some detail how it is to be achieved and be able to defend their positions. Yet there has been zero chance of a sensible discussion on that kind of policy issue which would be assumed by the broadcasters to be beyond the attention span of their audiences.

Political retribution

In less than two years from now, we will go to the polls for the Holyrood elections and I hope some time is spent between now and then planning how to do things differently. Surely it will not be the same tired format of party leaders lined up at their little podiums to mouth pre-rehearsed platitudes and shout slogans and insults at each other?

I don’t know why we needed six weeks for a campaign that has yielded so little in terms of ideas. If polls are to be believed, the relative positions of parties have hardly changed. Most minds were made up a long time ago that it is indeed time for a change and also for a dose of political retribution.

Nonetheless, these past few weeks could have been used to promote belief in the power of politics to change people’s hopes and expectations and create a better society. These voices have not been heard loudly enough while the barrage of negativity towards any potential for optimism has been the weapon of those who defend the status quo.

I accept that caution has been the necessary stepping stone to change but soon it must be followed by vision.