Monday night's televised debate among the three principal candidates for Montreal's mayoralty was, like most election debates, quite a letdown. Where theory proposes a reasoned discussion of policy bringing with it some illumination of character, rude practice gave us instead a cacaphonous "playing of cassettes," as all three recited their sound bites, often trying without success to out-shout each other. The finished product was inelegant, inconclusive, and often incomprehensible. Mercifully, it lasted only 50 minutes.
About the only important point to emerge from the wild ruckus, we thought, grows from the accusatory question Louise Harel posed to Gérald Tremblay: was his office responsible for leaks to the media about Benoit Labonté's alleged financial support from a prominent contractor? (Tremblay's answer, for the record, was "not to my knowledge.")
It's striking that Harel didn't ask ask what Tremblay had known about the supposed contributions, or when he knew it. She didn't ask if he knew of anyone else so favoured. She didn't ask anything like that, but rather demanded to know who leaked the information to a journalist.
Well, who cares? True, it's a titillating subject for the chattering classes to discuss over drinks, but what's the relevance? Did she mean to suggest that such information, if correct, should have been suppressed?
Why are election debates so often disappointing? Perhaps our leader and would-be leaders need to follow the rules used in high school and college debates: Don't interrupt each other. Stay on topic. Be prepared to back up your claims. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.