Harry: The main problem inherent in allowing celebrities to participate in political campaigns is the fact that celebrities cause voters to vote for a certain political party or candidate based on their like or dislike for the celebrity who is doing the endorsement. This obviously causes a whole raft of major issues, the main ones being the gaining of illegitimate votes for certain political parties and/ or candidates, and the negative ulterior motives behind celebrity endorsements. A celebrity who endorses a political campaign will always cause voters to vote for the celebrity rather than the politician. This can (in the worst-case scenario) mean that a politician or political party gets voted in not on their political aims and policies, but the calibre and popularity of the celebrities who endorsed them. When a celebrity gets involved, voters are far less likely to vote based on their own analysis of different political candidates. Take Robyn Malcolm (aka Cheryl West) who endorsed the Green party in the 2008 general election. This resulted in an almost two percent increase in votes for Green in 2008 (compared to the 2005 election). Obviously not all of this can be attributed to Malcolm’s endorsement of the Greens, but a lot of voters, particularly malleable younger voters, would have voted for Green because of Malcolm’s association. Celebrity endorsements sway political campaigns and totally undermine the whole election process. Do we want to risk getting a bad politician into power? No, of course not, but this is what happens every time a celebrity endorses a politician. The second major negative aspect of celebrity endorsements is the non-neutrality of them. Celebrities are often only endorsing political parties because they personally know the politician (which is unethical) or because they are benefiting by the endorsement in some way (which is downright illegal). It is very rare to see a celebrity endorsing a political party for purely selfless reasons. It should be obvious by now that celebrity endorsements distort the neutrality of political campaigning. There are far more instances of distorted voting and unethical endorsement reasons than otherwise, and for that reason the only option is to ban celebrity campaigning in politics.
Kurt: If you’re going to restrict freedom of speech, you better have a very good reason for it. My argument is that celebrities actually add value to politics, rather than harm it. Firstly, celebrities don’t have this nasty influence over elections that causes mass upheaval of the democratic process. There are many influences on how people vote in elections. Friends, family (how your parents have always voted is the prime example), trade unions, and politicians themselves all influence people’s decisions in one way or another, and I can’t see why celebrities are any different. Secondly, it increases voter participation. Most Western countries (especially the United States) have huge issues with low voter turnout. Low voter turnout is usually associated with people feeling uninterested or unimportant in the political process. Celebrities can help this by making politics interesting to people who would have otherwise have been disinterested. They also act as a role model for others to go out and vote come election time. Thirdly, it is true that a large number of people don’t have the time or interest to know the fine details about what’s going on in the world of politics. Celebrities can help bridge this information gap. This is because celebrities with whom people share values can indicate which candidates represent their views. Two notable examples in the United States were Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama and Chuck Norris’ endorsement of Mike Huckabee. People who know these celebrities can more easily understand which politician represents their views. This means more people are likely to vote as they now feel more informed. Fourthly, liberty. Any person should be able to express their political beliefs in the democratic forum without the state banning them from doing so. It breaches a fundamental human right that all democratic societies respect. Finally, watch this: http://www.youtube.com MDUQW8LUMs8
Debatable is a column written by the Otago University Debating Society. They meet every Tuesday at 7pm in Commerce 2.20. 03 33