Most people who follow politics know that the Reform Party was allowed to participate in the 1993 federal election televised leaders debate. Just a little over a decade later, the remainder of that party now forms government in Canada. What you may not realize is that the Reform Party had not participated in a general election to that point. Yet Preston Manning was given a podium with the Bloc, Liberals, P.C., and NDP.
The Green Party has been previously excluded for various reasons that have been shown to be invalid. Here are the details on the exclusions, and how they don’t make sense to impartial people. One such bogus reason given to the Green Party and the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for the party in the last election is that they haven’t had a sitting MP before. Well the Reform Party and Bloc didn’t exactly either, at least not one that stemmed from a general election. Instead, one riding was responsible for launching a political party nationwide. There is no sense, or fairness in excluding the Green Party from televised debates.
In theory, a sitting MP could cross the floor to the Green Party before the next election. Then in keeping with precedent, the media consortium responsible for running the debate would be including an official party which voters did not directly elect a member from. Many Canadians would find that offensive, given their feelings toward David Emerson, and Belinda Stronach. Why aren’t independent MPs allowed to debate if they sat in the last Parliament? People like Chuck Cadman would have been given a podium and equal time with Harper and Martin.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Miles Lunn | 20-Sep-06 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
I think they should let them participate. What happened with the Reform Party is not the only time this has happened. Here in BC, in 1991, the NDP and the Social Credit were originally the only parties suppose to participate in the debates, but after several Liberal members picketed the studios, they agreed to allow Gordon Wilson to also participate who was only in single digits in the polls in that time and had no seat in the legislature. After the debate he went on to form the official opposition, 33% of the popular vote and 17 seats and ended up essentially ending the era of the Social Credit.
However, regardless of how big an impact they can have, I believe the Greens should be allowed in the debate.
dylan | 20-Sep-06 at 7:58 pm | Permalink
Amen, Miles!
CfSR | 20-Sep-06 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
The Reform Party did run candidates acros much of the West in 1998.
In that election, Manning ran in Yellowhead against Joe Clark.
But you’re right. There is a precedent that can be applied to Green Party particpation in the debate.
So proceduralist might note that Deb Grey and Stan Waters were already in Parliament to argue the exclusion of the Greens from the debate.
That may explain May’s desire to find a Green Senator.
The party has a significant core of support.
They’ve passed the threshold for public funding which might in itself be an apprpriate criteria for inclusion.
Tax paying voters can see if their money has been well spent.
The party’s found a full slate of candidate for a couple of elections.
Yes, they should be at the debates.
At least those in which the leader actually speaks the language.
Stephen Glauser | 20-Sep-06 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
Although not a Green supporter (I am strictly non-partisan), I do firmly believe that they should have equal rights when it comes to the debate … well, debate. There is absolutely no excuse for excluding a party that runs candidates in every riding from the electoral debates. It is hypocritical of the national media to believe they are giving the people fair coverage when excluding such a large party altogether. I’m especially upset with the CBC, as a government-operated crown it should really not have any say in who takes part in the debate. Maybe it should be decided by an independent panel — the public!
However, by including the Greens in the debate, it opens up even more questions about other, smaller, parties that would like to take part but are unable to.
Saskboy | 20-Sep-06 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
CfSR, I think you meant 1988? The Greens have run full slates the last two elections, which is better than the Reform Party’s run at leading Canada back in the 80’s, and 90’s.
Stephen, “I’m especially upset with the CBC, as a government-operated crown it should really not have any say in who takes part in the debate.”
And when people like Ron Crocker of Maritimes CBC decides who gets in to debates, Canadians are going to lose their democracy.
Pilot | 20-Sep-06 at 11:54 pm | Permalink
Isn’t it wonderful to know we can vote for whoever we want, but someone else gets to choose how you’re exposed to the candidates. I know alot of people that I talk with would be more inclined to vote for the Green Party were they treated like every other party. They very obviously are not, and this limits their potential.
Daz | 21-Sep-06 at 12:56 am | Permalink
I thought about this when I heard Elizabeth May on the radio just after her winning the leadership. Seems to me that if we’re paying to help support the party, we should have a chance to hear what they have to say.
More here.
CfSR | 21-Sep-06 at 5:40 am | Permalink
Yup.
1988.
My fingers can, apparently, time travel without ever leaving the keyboard.