The longer and more convoluted the so-called debate over debates gets in advance of this fall’s federal election, the clearer it becomes that the Conservative party’s goal is simply to manipulate the rules in its favour.

In some senses there’s nothing surprising about this: it’s what political parties always try to do, the Harper Conservatives more than most.

But surprising or not, if the Tories succeed it will be a profound disservice to our electoral process and a setback for anyone who believes in encouraging more Canadians to engage with the national political discussion.

To recap an increasingly tangled story: last week the Conservatives unilaterally announced they would no longer take part in leaders’ debates organized by the four national broadcast organizations (known as the consortium).

Instead, they said, they want to encourage “diversity and innovation” by having different sponsors and formats for campaign debates. They even wanted some of the events to be scheduled before the campaign is underway.

Now, after a week and a half of manoeuvring among the parties, it looks like the Tories have agreed to have Prime Minister Stephen Harper take part in four debates – three in English and one in French – organized by various organizations with a variety of rules and formats. None of them involve the biggest English networks – CBC/Radio-Canada and CTV.

To add to the confusion, the broadcasters’ consortium plans to stage two national debates. But Harper won’t take part, raising the possibility that Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair may end up debating each other – and an empty chair.

Some might ask: who cares? Why not have all kinds of debates? Wasn’t the dominance of the old-line broadcasters just a relic of traditional thinking?

In fact, no. Having at least a handful of nationally broadcast, independently organized debates is still key to exposing the largest possible number of voters to the leaders and the campaign issues.

In 2011, the English and French debates drew an impressive 14 million viewers. For the very reason that they were broadcast simultaneously on CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV, Global and TVA they practically forced anyone with a passing interest in politics to at least take note. They were the centre-pieces of the campaign and crucial tests for the leaders. They also put the head of the governing party and his challengers on an equal footing for at least the duration of the debate.

Now, entirely because of the Conservatives’ determination to have things their way, we are heading toward a situation where there are more debates – but none is likely to have the mass audience, and therefore the political weight, of past face-offs. And it’s far from certain that we will be able to see all three major party leaders actually confront one another in the same forum.

Obviously, political junkies will find the debates – whether they are on broadcast TV or live-streamed by the Globe and Mail (which is sponsoring one encounter on the economy) or the Munk Debates (which are organizing a session on foreign policy). But these may well turn out to be niche events with rules crafted to the liking of the governing party. They are much less likely to be the central events of the campaign.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The old consortium system wasn’t perfect. As the Star recommended in the run-up to the 2011 campaign, it would be preferable for debates to be organized by a “non-partisan, independent and accountable commission committed to clear standards on participation.”

But debates organized and broadcast simultaneously by the national networks were far more useful than the patchwork that is emerging thanks to the Conservatives’ insistence on cherry-picking events. They obviously think it will work for them. Voters should pass their own judgment on this cynical manoeuvre.

Read more about: