On Debate...

With our own elections looming in the near distance, and our southern neighbour's already underway, we can look forward to an autumn of heated debates between various candidates in various levels of politics.

This causes me to reflect on the nature of debate, and the role that it has in our political process. During a verbal debate, candidates do not have the luxury to take the time to actually give some honest consideration to their opponents' point of view - to consider if some of their opponents' arguments may actually have some merit, to critically reflect on their own perspectives and to consider a collaborative solution to the issue which includes these diverse perspectives. In fact, this would be highly discouraged, and it would be considered a sign of weakness.

No, the goal of debate is to show a stubborn adherance to one's own point of view, to show that one can refute any argument no matter how valid it may be. The "winner" is not the one who can intellectually take in all the various arguments and formulate a solution which is collaborative and which may embody new and courageous ideals. The winner instead is someone who refuses to consider opposing reason, and who insists on a partisan solution to complex issues - and he/she who can most effectly avoid giving genuine consideration to the points of the other party and remain rigid in their own view is the one who is deemed the better leader!

Through this process we effectively seek out stubborn, rigid, opinionated leaders rather than intellectually curious, collaborative, and inclusive leaders. And then we act shocked when the democratic process doesn't work, and when the minority's voice and dissenting views are not taken legitimately. Is it really any surprise?