ANALYSIS: TV debates are the gladiatorial theatre of elections but do they really matter?
DURING THE 1997 British general election, the Conservative Party sent out actors dressed as chickens to follow Tony Blair, who they accused of running scared to debate on television with John Major. Not to be outdone Labour responded by hiring actors dressed as foxes to upstage the Tory chickens.
Such beasts may not be outside the studios of TV3 tomorrow evening but it is likely there will be an empty chair given Enda Kenny’s decision not to participate in a three-way debate with Micheál Martin and Eamon Gilmore.
The decision to stay away is unlikely to do Kenny or his party any significant harm. More than 80 per cent of people in Britain wanted a leaders debate in 1997 but neither this public demand, nor chickens or foxes, persuaded Labour that there was anything to be gained from participating.
Televised debates are now features of most nations’ election campaigns. Voters in the United Kingdom were for the first time treated to three such debates at the 2010 Westminster election. The debates are big media events which draw large television audiences. They serve several purposes including informing voters about the electoral choices they face and levelling the playing field between parties. The media love a winner and a loser but, more often that not, the outcome is declared a draw as cautious and well-schooled leaders say little to cause offence.
There is little academic research to show these debates lead to significant vote swings. But that does not mean debates are irrelevant to voting behaviour. They tend to reinforce existing views, particularly about the perception of leaders. They also have an impact on undecided voters, although the reality is that few voters make up their minds on the back of a single television programme.
On the downside, leader debates augment “personality politics” and reinforce the trivialisation of politics with the ubiquitous image consultant appearing to discuss the leaders’ clothes, and pundit judgment being as sophisticated as discussing a smile or a hand gesture.
Discussion invariably harks back to the famous 1960 US presidential debate when the camera favoured John Kennedy over Richard Nixon. But research in the US and Australia shows voters are influenced as much by media reporting of the debate as the actual debate itself.
During one of the 1976 US presidential debates Gerard Ford declared there was no Soviet Union domination of Eastern Europe. Initial research showed the gaffe had made only minimal impact but later as the media picked up on the remark, the voters turned negative on Ford to the benefit of Jimmy Carter.
These debates do pose a certain risk, particularly for participants who have already got an advantage over their rivals in the polls, as well as candidates who are not strong television performers. Both criteria apply to Enda Kenny and are likely to have influenced Fine Gael’s approach to the 2011 leaders’ debates.
What is surprising about the proposed debates in 2011 is how old-fashioned they are. Elsewhere – including in the UK in 2010 – television debates have long moved on from the Nixon-Kennedy 1960 format. The trend has been to have audience participation and to lessen the interview format from having a journalist as moderator.
The trend elsewhere has also been for co-operation between rival broadcasters in the organisation of leaders debates. Months before the 2010 Westminster contest the main broadcasters – BBC, ITV and Sky – made a joint approach to the three parties to host a series of television debates. A committee involving the broadcasters and the parties was formed, and it eventually hammered a list of 76 rules about how the debates would operate.
It is a pity that in the middle of the 2011 campaign we have competitive jostling between TV3 and RTÉ, and a row about organisation and format between the parties. If we accept that these debates are important, then their organisation should not be left to back-room deals between the broadcasters and party handlers.
Politicians will always have the right not to participate. The “empty chair” principle has happened in Australia and Canada. Helmut Kohl refused to take part in television debates after German reunification due to the proposed presence of the former East German communist party. But politicians should not have the right to veto the debate because of their own political interests, as Enda Kenny is doing.
This shabby situation would have been unlikely if the debates had been organised under the auspices of a legitimate and independent body. This is done in several countries including the US where the Commission on Presidential Debates has recently started work for the 2012 presidential election.
If John Gormley’s proposed electoral commission ever happens it would be an ideal body to fulfil this task.
Kevin Rafter is a former political journalist who now works in the School of Communications at Dublin City University