Derailed debate (1)

There seems to be a disturbing trend in Malta to completely confuse the concept of a political debate with that of a popular (mass) meeting. They are two completely different things - and though I was not present for Insite's debate on campus on Monday, I have heard - from people of different political persuasions - that this event ended up being both a debate and a popular meeting, with poignant implications with respect to the final delivery. As I will show, it is theoretically impossible to have both a debate and a political meeting happening contemporarily.

In a popular/mass meeting, communication flows from the speaker to the audience. In a debate, politicians debate each other, and do not address the people. The only reason the audience is there in a meeting is firstly to give viewers at home the feeling they are represented; and secondly, for question time, during which the locus of communication does not change; questions are impersonal and directed at all the speakers, who are still, for all intents and purposes, addressing each other. In a debate, therefore, there is no real interaction between the audience and the politicians. In a speech, interaction is everything.

I have heard many argue that booing and clapping are an inevitable part of a political debate. Coming hot on the heels of American Senator John McCain being booed in the US just a few days ago, some have even compared the Insite "debate" with American presidential debates. I regret to say that there is simply no room for comparison. Mr McCain was giving a speech, by himself, and was certainly not engaged in a debate. American presidential debates are designed to inform voters, and not as a means of public interaction with candidates. Audiences are kept as small as possible. They are selected from beforehand, and selection is carried out by independent organisations. Questions are rarely allowed, and when they are, they are vetted from beforehand. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic Parties sign a Memorandum of Understanding before the debate governing the way the debate proceeds. (For further information, simply consult the website of the Commission for United States Presidential Debates!)

To conclude therefore, I argue that the word "debate" in Maltese political discourse has been overly-politicised, in a country replete with phone-in "debates", popular talk shows, and a "comment is free" attitude. That attitude is horribly out of place during a political debate - and does nothing but hinder the objective of the debate itself: the transmission of political party leaders' political ideas, designed to inform voters about party manifestos, before polling day.

My final word goes to Insite. Your efforts are admirable - do keep it up. Having said that, I would propose a smaller audience next time, and a greater focus on what the candidates have to say. The Insite reaction in the aftermath of the event was euphoric: They were happy that they got all four leaders there (fulfilling a key "debate" criterion) and that they filled Sir Temi Zammit to the brim (a key "mass meeting" criterion). Both are perfectly admirable results, so hats off to Insite. In satisfying both factors in unison, however, they might have bitten off more than they could chew. In what is in effect the most damning evidence of the derailing of that event, most of the evening's news coverage focused not on what the candidates said, but how the audience was behaving. Enough said.