April 8, 2011
The federal election is a reminder of political realities for Green Parties that must compete under the first past the post voting system. The decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the federal leaders’ televised debates highlights one of the obstacles to inclusion of Green Party ideas in the political discourse.
The leaders’ debates are seen as a necessary obligation in election campaigns both for broadcasters and the parties. Over successive elections the format has actually suppressed any real debate. Instead the parties aggressively negotiate the rules and format to make sure that the debates are a continuation of the scripted, controlled message that dominates their campaign.
I think the big five broadcasters who make up the Consortium don’t really care about the debates. Their behind-closed-doors “journalistic” excuse to exclude May rings hollow. The debates are way more interesting with her there. Her participation last time brought life to and otherwise dull affair – made deliberately so by the stilted and staged format.
If the Consortium’s motivation really is journalistic value, there would be no question of Elizabeth’s participation.
Although the broadcasters said the decision was theirs alone, I don’t believe it for a minute. I think the Conservatives (and maybe the others) told the broadcasters in the negotiations that Elizabeth was not to be included – under any circumstance.
I imagine they anticipated the current backlash and the Consortium agreed to take all the flak. The Prime Minister intimated as much when he said no to Ignatieff’s invitation to a one on one. The PM said if the Liberals had wanted that format, they could have pushed for it in the negotiations. At the Federal Court hearing, the lawyers for the Consortium said if Elizabeth was included, others might not participate and there might not be a debate.
I was struck by some of the arguments used as to why commentators agreed or disagreed with the decision. One said Elizabeth’s French was so bad she felt Quebecers shouldn’t have to endure the pain of listening to her French. Another said that the Green Party is focusing resources on getting Elizabeth May elected in her riding rather than running a national campaign.
This latter observation illustrates the Green dilemma. Greens will be excluded as long as the party fails to win a seat. But when the party’s decides to focus on winning a seat, it is criticized as not mounting a national campaign. I guess having candidates in every riding doesn’t count under that logic.
So, what is a Green to do? Since the purpose of the party is to elect people, they must do what they can to realize that objective.
Being strategic and tactical is new for the Green Party. As long as first past the post is sandbox we have to play in, we have to use it as a tool.
Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party of England and Wales did just that. She won a seat under first past the post with 31% of the votes. All she needed was a good split and solid support. The votes were split amongst five candidates and she won the plurality.
Go Elizabeth go!
|
|
Tweet |
|