The UK Parliament has a fantastic tradition, known as Prime Minister’s Questions. Every Wednesday at noon, the Prime Minister faces pointed, brutally phrased questions, which he must deflect with wit and candor. Should he fail, he faces the harangues of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle. It’s a political trial by fire, which has the effect of forcing the Prime Minister to be a skilled public speaker, intelligent, and above all accountable.
When I worked in Parliament in the summer of 2005, I routinely wished that we would institute this practice for our President. PMQs routinely exposes the failings of the sitting executive for all the world to see. It forces the Prime Minister to defend himself, stripped bare of the insulation provided by spin, the media, and sound bytes. More than one party leader has stepped down after PMQs displayed his incompetence for all the world to see (think Iain Duncan Smith). Imagine: if we’d had PMQs in 2000, how quickly would Bush have been gone?
Now McCain wants to institute this practice, according to Reuters. While I sincerely hope he never has the chance to do so, I hope our new Democratic president will take a cue from him, adopt a “President’s Questions” weekly event, and make it permanent. Over the past seven years – facilitated by a willing media – American “anti-elitism” has morphed into a veritable embrace of the ignorant, the dim-witted, and the uninformed, a trend which threatens to swallow our politics and our country. A “President’s Questions” session would have the effect of partially lifting this cloud, making intellect once more a prized commodity in the White House.
The genius of these sessions lies in the fact that, although questions are known in advance and the answer is scripted, the active and competitive nature of the House of Commons turns the single question into a ten-minute impromptu debate system. It’s the Marketplace of Ideas at its best: without restriction.
It’s also occasionally hilarious. When I was there, on June 15, 2005, this exchange occurred. The question was proferred by Iain Duncan Smith, former Conservative Prime Minister:
The Prime Minister has been against Europe and then for it. He has been for the pound and then against it. He has been against a referendum and then for it. And although he has been against negotiating on our rebate, I discovered at the weekend that he is for it, although to be fair to him he is both for and against it right now. The Prime Minister has taken more positions than the “Kama Sutra.”
As you can see, the Honourable Mr. Smith, MP, has learned to debate.
What a great idea! I can just see the sweat beading now on the brow.
Posted by goesdownbitter | May 31, 2008, 11:29 amAn interesting idea… though as a Brit I am slightly less impressed with the venerable institution of PMQs, which so often descends to mere political point scoring and cheap shots. And skill in this kind of debating is often not necessarily linked to sensible policies – William Hague, as opposition leader, was brilliant at PMQs but not, I would say, because his policies were any good!
Having said that, there are also regular sessions of putting oral parliamentary questions to other Ministers. Probably because this is less high profile, this is often more insightful and an opportunity to for members of parliament to highlight issues affecting their constituents.
Posted by lirone | May 31, 2008, 12:17 pmSomething similar to
Prime Minister’s Questions is common in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.
In Australia, our own Question Time (not exclusively for the Prime Minister, questions can be directed to any minister – though in practice the PM gets a lot of them, and the first question will generally come from the leader of the Opposition) is televised in Australia, live and then repeated late at night. It tends to be very rowdy.
Posted by Efrique | May 31, 2008, 12:30 pmHow could we keep it from degrading to the softball-fest our current press conferences have become? Journalists who ask hardball questions of our president lose “access”.
Posted by gawiman | May 31, 2008, 10:47 pmIain Duncan Smith was leader of the Conservative party from 2001 to 2003 but never Prime Minister.
Tony Blair was PM and regularly trounced him at the Dispatch Box.
The idea of George W. facing the same sort of questioning is something I’d pay to see.
Posted by Kitty | June 1, 2008, 6:34 pmHey Kitty! Thanks for visiting and for the corrections. I’ll make the latter right away – I can’t believe I made such a blunder. Ugh.
As for Blair getting trounced, the way I heard it was he only got beaten by IDS once IDS had retired and come back, after being coached by a debate expert :-)
Posted by Ames | June 1, 2008, 6:50 pmWe have “Question Period” in Canada. It’s the only political entertainment we get really, unless someone has an affair.
Posted by Karen Simon | June 1, 2008, 9:38 pmOn more minor correction for AMES. Kitty said that IDS was the one being trounced.
Posted by lcc | June 12, 2008, 5:50 am