Election debates à la Finland's channel Nelonen

The Finnish presidential election takes place next week and, as an expat, I need to catch up on politics in dear old Pohjola. Luckily, though, I just got a bit of help from my good friend, Joe, who sent me this video of Timo Soini (True Finns) and Pekka Haavisto (Greens). It's from a series called "Alone at last!", and each episode shows two presidential candidates going head to head in a debate on defence, employment, the Euro, foreign policy, etc. The format is simple yet ingenious: a 35 minute informal discussion without a moderator, with no breaks or any other outside interference.

I'd never seen an "election debate" like this before – and it sure was refreshing. It could hardly be more different from the extravagant set pieces seen in American presidential races, where such is the intensity of the limelight that candidates resort to making $10,000 bets on policy issues. There was no spectacle in Nelonen's debate, no lights, fireworks nor music. Just two candidates talking like normal people, albeit ones with highly formed opinions on current affairs.

This novel format was also a lot more interesting than the largely artificial debates that took place for the UK's general election, where none of the candidates really said much of substance for fear of upsetting some portion of the electorate. Britons were simply offered platitudes and play-doh politics with the same things being said, regurgitated, refashioned and repeated with a slightly different twist, over and over again, ad nauseaum.

Perhaps the best thing about Nelonen's "face-off" format is the way it takes away from the politicians the comfort of breaks, when the cameras are on their adversary, for example, during which to regroup their thoughts. A constant conversation with a single interlocutor also forces them to keep up with the game without recourse to notes. While they've no doubt prepared and been given some kind of framework for discussion and topics they are expected to cover, a lesser politician could easily find themselves in trouble having to perform, discuss, debate, argue, retort, provide evidence and, simply, be cool, natural and approachable for over 30 minutes without any respite.

It's a bit like the difference between rugby and the NFL. The former is a drawn out affair that flows on its own momentum, providing few chances for the team to revise battle lines or change tactics once play has begun. The latter, by contrast, requires action in bursts, with the game stopping every few seconds, giving both sides the opportunity to redraw formations and revise strategies at every possible turn.

Now, which would you say provides a better approximation of real life and the real world: a constant flux, like rugby, or dispersed events with precise intervals, like American football? Well, I would argue that both life and politics are in a constant state of movement and change. Anyone wanting to succeed in either best keep up with the blooming buzzing confusion or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Anyway, watching this debate, I soon realised that I'd never before seen politicians behaving in this way: like normal people discussing stuff mano a mano and debating policies over a cup of java. It was in stark contrast to how we are used to seeing our elected leaders: in the spotlight at press conferences, being interviewed, giving speeches, or electioneering on the campaign trail – all of which are situations that we the public don't have much experience of.

Indeed, as a result of its familiarity, the mundane set up made it far easier to gauge these two candidates, and not just their politics but also their personality and character: are they easily flustered or do they come across as arrogant? Are they able to provide facts and figures to support their arguments? Do they stay on topic or do they try to weasel their way out of questions? Do they resort to ad hominem attacks? In short, do they stay cool under sustained fire from their opponent and do they know their stuff?

As long as the participants don't conspire to agree their conversation in advance – but as they represent different parties and are all after the same position, it wouldn't make much sense for them to do so – dare I say this new format might even be better for democracy. 

Firstly, it forces our decision makers to actually engage their competitors one-on-one and, as we see in this video, to their surprise, the pair find themselves agreeing on more than they previously thought. Second, as it's an organic discussion, there is less chance of others influencing the proceedings, whether it were the Party, the network airing the debate, or lobbyist who may be able to sway the process of picking questions and/or the audience. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it sheds our elite of at least some of their trappings of power (stage, lectern, spotlights, audience, prewritten speeches, etc.), and shows them for what they – and we all – are, just normal blokes and lasses.

So, good on you Nelonen – and other channels take note.

***

I certainly won't be voting for Timo Soini, so repulsive are many of his views and so short-sighted are the majority of his policies. That said, one has to give the man credit for his uncanny ability to create easily digestible nuggets of political propaganda that will surely appeal to a whole lot of Finns. Mr Soini is remarkable in his ability to encapsulate complex issues into commonsensical soundbytes, but they are, however, nearly always factually incorrect or incomplete, and often morally reprehensible. As a result, watching this video makes me even more nervous that he might win, but I trust the majority of us will see through him and the shallow worldview that he and his close minded ilk represent.

Pekka Haavisto comes off well in the video. His grasp and experience of foreign policy shines through strongly. He may yet become a surprisingly strong contender. 

... but needs must I continue catching up on the other candidates, starting with the conversation between Sari Essaya v Eva Biaudet from the same series. And here's Sauli Niinistö v Paavo Väyrynen. And here's Arhinmäki v Lipponen.