At about 6 o’clock, last Wednesday night, my Cosmos editorial cohabitant, Roger Varley, and I arrived at the Uxbridge arena and began setting up chairs. It was the night of the election debate that the newspaper had organized. And, as usual, it was an all-hands-on-deck effort. By about 6:30, Roger and I had pulled about 50 or 60 seats from the storage closet out onto the floor. We paused a moment, each scanning the arrangement as if to say:
“Do you think that’s enough? How many people do you think will show up?”
During most federal, provincial and municipal elections over the past 20 years or so, our all-candidates forums here in town, have indeed reflected the title. All the candidates (and sometimes more than we expected) have arrived and joined the discussions. What’s more, so have the audiences to watch and/or pose questions. As moderator, I’ve always found myself eyeing the clock worrying whether I can squeeze all the questions and the candidates’ responses into the allotted couple of hours.
But last Wednesday an oversized audience was not the problem. Numbers were down, partly because the Cosmos had made the event available on-line.
The more perplexing dilemma originated on the candidates’ side of the room. Did you know that our Pickering-Uxbridge provincial riding has nine candidates running? According to Elections Ontario, the PCs, the Liberals, the New Democrats and Greens have officially nominated candidates. But so too have the Ontario Moderate Party, the Ontario Party, and the New Blue Party. There are also two independent candidates running. Nine aspirants in all.
But the Cosmos’s all-candidates forum – organized and advertised immediately after the May 3 dissolution of parliament – attracted only three candidates. Bad promotion? I doubt it. Apathy? Perhaps.
Virtuality. I think that’s the problem. And yes, the COVID-19 pandemic that has paralyzed everything else over the past two and a half years is partly to blame. We’ve looked to Zoom as a panacea. But this panacea has become a crutch, an illusion, and – in political terms – an attractive form of evasion, or more seriously an alternate reality for proper political exchange.
Take Monday night’s Ontario Leaders’ Debate on TVO. It was billed as the last debate of the campaign. With the exception of the northern debate (held May 10 in North Bay) wasn’t it the only debate? A convenience, I’d say, for a premier who has a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth, avoiding reporters’ questions, and never looking the least bit comfortable meeting the average Ontario citizen unless it’s part of an orchestrated photo opportunity.
No. Virtuality has come along at just the right time for politicians who don’t want to or feel they don’t need to meet the electorate. Zoom – and all other elements of social media – have created a peek-a-boo election campaign.
I remember when TV debates were invented back in the 1960s. Even the nominees for president of the most powerful western democracy on the planet – John Kennedy and Richard Nixon – were expected to participate in four nationally televised debates, each with a focused theme, each closely moderated, and each requiring statement, head-to-head rebuttal, and response to journalists’ tough questioning. Four times in the month leading up the U.S. Presidential Election in November 1960. Sixty minutes each time. And we saw both men sweat under pressure each time.
I give full marks to Conservative Peter Bethlenfalvy, New Democrat Ahmed Khalid and Liberal Daniyal Ibrahim for appearing at the all-candidates forum at the arena last week. (In fact, candidate Ibrahim raced from a nearly coincidental meeting with his party leader in Pickering so that he could join the forum in progress and still answer the public’s questions). They responded to the call to appear. They presented their parties’ policies. They offered personal anecdotes to amplify their points of view. They answered questions from reporters and the public.
But where were the others? The Green Party candidate offered regrets. The Ontario Party rep chose not to enter the hall, fabricating an affront to the organizer’s (publisher Lisha Van Nieuwenhove’s) choice to require masks inside for safety of the vulnerable. And the others didn’t even care to respond.
Again, I have the greatest respect for the three candidates and the voting public who participated in the Cosmos forum on May 11. But I am angry that we’ve allowed elections to be run by the convenience of artificial discourse.
We’ve encouraged a technological youngster – virtual reality – to run roughshod over the hands-on traditions of democracy in action – knocking on doors, writing and delivering speeches in public – actually physically engaging the electorate.
I fear that politicians and voters have gladly welcomed a virtual Trojan horse inside the hard-fought-for freedoms of a functioning Parliamentary democracy.
Ted, I would appreciate it if you would be more honest in your writing and retract your statement that I am “fabricating an affront to the organizer’s (publisher Lisha Van Nieuwenhove’s) choice to require masks inside for safety of the vulnerable”. This is completely untrue and below is the real reason for Lisha’s mandate directly from an email she sent to me. Author Lisha “As you wish to know legally what gives the Cosmos the right to ask that masks be worn, I can only supply this. While the mask mandate has been lifted in Ontario, aside from select settings such as health care and public transit, it’s also perfectly within the rights of an organization to request that masks be worn to any event that is being coordinated. These forums are usually quite well attended, and I, as the organizer, firmly believe that the wearing of masks during this still-precarious time can only be beneficial to all who attend.
On a personal level, I am scheduled for a major surgery on June 8. This surgery won’t happen if I get COVID-19.
Ted, I would appreciate an apology and for you to print a retraction with the said truths. Lisha only imposed the mask mandate because she firmly believes in the wearing of masks, and because of her upcoming surgery on June 8, that will not happen if she gets covid. I will gladly forward you the copy of the email, that makes no mention of the safety of the vulnerable. Maybe at the same time, you could tell the truth about why I didn’t enter the hall. I mentioned it in my candidate article that was edited out by someone on your team. I said “nobody has the right to exclude someone because they are different, because they have a different belief, or because they look different, these divisive politics need to end” I continued on to say that “if you agree with dividing people, then vote for my opposition. They too walked right on past everyone who was standing outside allowing them to be discriminated against. If you want an MPP who will represent you and ALL people of Pickering-Uxbridge, then you will vote for me, Lisa Robinson” I look forward to your response.