Search

Comparatively few studies have looked at debates in other countries besides The United States. This study replicates past research using Functional Theory to analyze electoral debates from two countries with parliamentary systems, i.e., countries in which citizens cannot directly vote for their Prime Minister. Content analysis was employed to investigate the four 2006 Canadian prime minister debates-two held in English, two in French-and the 2007 Australian prime minister debate. Candidates in these debates acclaimed, or praised themselves, more than they attacked, or criticized opponents, and defended, or refuted attacks from opponents, least. The incumbent candidates produced more acclaims and defenses and made fewer attacks than the challenger candidates. In particular, the incumbents used past deeds, or record in office, to acclaim their record in office; challengers tended to use past deeds to attack the incumbent's record rather than to acclaim themselves. These candidates discussed policy more than character. Candidates, in general, acclaimed more than they attacked on general goals and ideals. These patterns are generally similar to those observed in Israel, South Korea, The Ukraine, and The U.S., which suggests that some features of political debates transcend national and cultural borders [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]