Politics and the media have always made strange bedfellows.
Much as politicians may despise the press as confirmed yet again by Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s latest rants about the media’s stance on Zimbabwe they also depend on the media to win the hearts and votes of the public. It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that there aren’t many politicians in democratic societies who wouldn’t secretly love to have the media in their pocket. Of course, they’d never say it outright. Sure, they might try slip a few dubious clauses into the odd Broadcast Amendment Bill, but, hey, if you don’t try
On the other hand, the media are sick to death of being called to account for what government perceives as bias in a country where freedom of the press is entrenched in the constitution. But if you thought close encounters between media and politics reached fever pitch when Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele sued the Mail and Guardian, think again. There’s something far more controversial in the pipeline something potentially even more entertaining than a grown woman whingeing about her report card.
From the United States, that bastion of prime-time-ratings-driven politics, comes the latest reality TV concept. It’s called ‘The American Candidate,’ and it might well pose a bigger threat to George Bush than Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
The show is under development at Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV, which recently enjoyed great success with the American version of ‘Idols.’ It’s similar in format to Idols, with 100 contestants from around the country pitted against each other at the mercy of the public’s phone-in vote. Only the public isn’t choosing the next pop icon, but the next US presidential candidate.
According to reports from the US media, a field of would-be presidents will be chosen from questionnaires and videotapes. They’ll then face off in weekly debate-like competitions. Each week, some candidates will be voted off by the public, until one is declared the winner and sent off to run for real this time as an independent presidential candidate in the 2004 election.
At first glance, it might look like reality TV encroaching a little too much on reality. I can already hear the sighs of “only in America,” and “that’s what happens to a nation when you let a guy like Jerry Springer loose in the trailer parks.”
Sure, it’s sleazy, commercial and caters to the lowest common denominator. But isn’t that kind of like politics?
The last US election was hardly a model of democracy, with ludicrous arguments over “partially perforated chads” and result-swinging decisions by an elitist Electoral College making a mockery of the concept of one-person-one-vote. Given the current state of the American electoral system, then, it’s easy to see why the public might jump at an alternative method of selecting its leaders.
That’s not to say the victorious Mister or Ms American Candidate would ever actually stand a chance in an election. After all, the participants will be little more than actors and who ever heard of an actor becoming president?
More interesting will be seeing whether the show incites millions of apathetic couch potatoes to throw down their beer cans in indignation and pick up the phone for a reason other than ordering pizza.
That possibility, in itself, suggests there might be some benefit in running our own ‘South African Candidate.’ In a country where political choices have often been motivated by factors like historical baggage or the colour of the candidate’s skin, it would be fascinating to see whether a fresh approach might garner votes based on actual issues.
Naturally, one would have to choose the medium carefully. If the show ran on a racially skewed platform like M-Net, we’d more than likely end up with Heinz Winkler for President. That wouldn’t do.
The SABC probably has enough party politics to deal with already, and I suspect this is one show our Department of Communications would fight tooth and nail to keep off the air even if it is local content.
So that leaves e.tv. And why not? Taste aside, the commercial potential is staggering. If people were prepared to run up astronomical phone bills voting for Mel and Ezra, just imagine what they’ll spend on the death penalty.
Of course, the winning candidate will be the one with the most marketing savvy, and the one whose supporters can afford the most phone calls, which might seem a little plutocratic. It also raises the Heinz Winkler problem again.
And then there’s the dubious matter of free media exposure giving the winning candidate an unfair advantage over the likes of AZAPO, who can barely afford a street pole ad.
But the major party leaders are selected according to marketing criteria anyway (incredible as this might seem when casting an eye at Marthinus van Schalkwyk), and is a freebee from a television station really any worse than being bankrolled by, say, a German criminal?
A more serious problem is that, unlike Americans, we don’t vote our president into office. We vote for parties, hoping the parties we vote for don’t cross the floor and turn into other parties. So ‘South African Candidate’ would have to adopt a format closer to SABC’s Popstars than M-Net’s Idols. That could detract somewhat from the cult of personality that made Idols so successful.
No matter, though, it would be easy enough to spice things up by having the candidates debating while lying in vats of live scorpions, or going three rounds in a boxing ring with our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Marcel Golding, if you’re reading this, let’s talk.