TV Heaven, Political Hell
The first televised political debates are still in talks between broadcasters and political parties. These negotiations may prove to be detrimental to the questions allowed to be asked. There is a worry that pre approved questions will form the majority of the debate similar to PM Question time in the House of Commons. This can be a good thing due to particular issues being addressed, but it can also lead to parties sticking to issues and policies that they are comfortable with.
Spontaneity will be lost to
an extent with all parties’ campaign teams pushing for particular focal points
such as health and the economy. Audience participation potentially
enlists spontaneity in interaction with party leaders. The planned extent of
this is not known due to negations still taking place in regards to audience
involvement. So who gets to be in the audience for these televised debates?
This is of mass importance because no party should have overwhelming support
over others. The audience should represent a fair picture of the UK in
2010 with a balance of opinions put together by an independent unbiased source
deciding on audience composition. The worry is that one or two parties
such as Labour and the Conservatives could dominate a debate and over shadow
the Liberal Democrats, who have a great chance to appeal to undecided
voters.
A televised debate could provide great television that overshadows the politics in question. A ‘celebrity’ style debate using leader’s appearance and charisma could immerse and take the shine off issues. The audience needs to see and hear what a political leader has to say under questioning whilst in the presence of other party leaders. A debate would give a more real and humanised appeal for potential voters. The televised debates could be more of a media circus that overshadows the actual politics it is supposed to be highlighting.
(Picture courtesy of dweller88 @ flickr)
It would appear that democracy has been dealt a heavy blow by allowing discrimination to become a key element of how representatives are elected. Even if we were to believe that the outcome of positive discrimination is beneficial, in a system where we value due process, should we ever endorse a method of selecting candidates that is oxymoronic to the very nature of democracy?
Our political system relies on choice. Imposing all women shortlist removes voter’s choice. Regardless of how voters select their representative, we should respect an individual’s right to chose. Without a full choice of candidates we being to embrace dictatorial methods, tainting the results regardless of how legitimate they may appear.
All women shortlists simply allow discrimination by the back door. Should anyone suggest all male shortlists there would be public outcry. Arguments for female equality reek of hypocrisy if we are prepared to allow men to face the same oppression with a respectable facade. By preventing male candidates from standing we risk suppressing people who may be best for the job. A fair playing field where both male and female candidates compete against one another will ensure that the best person prevails, not the best women or the best man.
To select a candidate merely because they are women not only does a disservice to our political system. It is a disservice to women who are selected. People should be judged by their merits. Politicians should be judged by their words and their actions. On these grounds we can hold the people who represent us accountable. We cannot hold someone to account simply for being a woman. For those candidates who do make their way to the House of Commons, they should be able to feel a sense of pride in their achievement. But who can honestly feel proud to be selected simply because of their gender. To allow all women shortlists, we dismiss female candidates as being unable to compete fairly, we reinforce stereotypes that women are in need of help and quite simply we patronise them.
As women prove themselves to be just as capable as men, the numbers of female MPs should theoretically be equal to those of male MPs. Change is often slow. But that does not mean that forcing such changes would be better. Positive discrimination is damaging to voters, damaging to the women themselves and crucially damages democracy.
Write a comment