The dirty business of whistle clean democracy
From Jim Lehrer’s comments at the opening of the presidential debate:
The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else.
For each question there can only be a two-minute response, a 90- second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.
A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time?s up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed.
Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
There is an audience here in the hall, but they will remain absolutely silent for the next 90 minutes, except for now, when they join me in welcoming President Bush and Senator Kerry.
If the essence of democracy is dialogue, then something very strange is going on down in the USA.
Matthew Baldwin has a humorous take on the “rules of engagement.”
So, how can we do this better? Democracy, it seems to me, needs to be enlivened at all levels by dialogue and conversation. Debates between people running for office at the highest levels both here in Canada and in the USA have taken on the character of candidate window dressing. Shoppers are encouraged to choose an item based on how it looks in the window.
What if the candidates sat down together on a stage in a circle with eight randomly selected citizens and were given two hours to hash out ideas together about how to move forward? What if they were given the task of coming to an AGREEMENT after two hours on a specific question relating to the future and well being of the country? Everyone could contribute and the only rules of engagement would be David Bohm’s rules of dialogue.
That would really be something, eh?
