Vibrant legislature trouncing incivility

Participants at the General Election seemed engrossed in the pivotal task of bringing in a vibrant legislature trouncing coarsened incivility by some intent on undermining political discourse.

The venues of tempered speech laced with accountability and transparency have buoyed expectations of a historic finality in April. Those who seemed ostensibly boorish and fanatically divisive are in for a shock.

It is gratifying to see that voters seek greater levels of cooperation and search for common ground, edging candidates to work towards prioritised national goals over personal ambitions. Resort to political negativity levelled with a vengeance, whether substantive or personal, evidenced or otherwise has palpably been proven to be unproductive.

The overall outlook seemed rosier as frenzied recourse to incivility through personal attacks, name calling, seditious accusations, harassment, and even threats of physical violence have dwindled as they had not swayed the voters.

Alexander Hamilton	Andrew Jackson	John Quincy Adams

It is time for such hyper-partisanship to end as incivility connotes impoliteness in social interactions by a few pursuing harsh ideological convictions with no pragmatic constraints whatsoever.

Hasty transitioning

Acts of incivility usually arose amidst the transition that took place as terror war ended and the need to reap the peace dividend arose.

Parties were transitioning hastily amidst highly explosive issues. Many felt helpless as emerging political landscape was almost within their grasp. Heightened polarization had set in. Massive professionalization of politics at all levels as the elections approached wrought havoc on political ambition.

There was scant opportunity for many to build personal relationships and a sense of camaraderie. Those that fell short resorted to undiluted incivility.

There was a climate of general distrust, and increasing diversity in the range of issues presented. It could easily be determined that the incidence of incivility appeared to have fluctuated over time in concordance with varying political contexts.

From such a perspective, recent acts of incivility seemed symptomatic of broader characteristics of a hectic political environment.

The sheer nonsensical level of mayhem aroused by such acts caused a backlash.

History of incivility

Current raucous political atmosphere often overlooked past instances of political incivility. As far back as in 1800 for example, Alexander Hamilton penned and circulated a letter concerning the ‘character’ of John Adams, his rival, which among many unflattering characterizations, charged that Adams’ ‘ungovernable temper’ rendered him unfit for executive office. Again in 1828, supporters of John Quincy Adams described Andrew Jackson as a ‘murderer’ and ‘cannibal.’

When political campaigns become riotous and debauched the discussion of issues disappeared and only the baser instincts were at play.

America in the 19th Century passed an act to prohibit the common campaign practice of duelling. National Diet of Japan became known for frequent outbursts of violence so severe they often carry over into the surrounding city streets.

So the residuary of such incivility continues to this day. All attack Ads that tend to diminish the qualities of decency and those e-mails that are an affront to morals are the remnants of bad political karma still haunting society.

Attack on the system

Those assaulting the intelligence and character of whom they oppose are indirectly attacking the electoral system. The consequences of such public disparagement caused great harm to the practitioners. Their attempt to inject waning rates of political efficacy and trust in the electoral system are an affront to democratic behaviour. It bespeaks of a sinister method of imposing partisanship on everything and getting the public to be increasingly critical of elected officials. It is in their interest to describe government as overly partisan, extremist, and inept at producing optimal policy solutions. In addition, stable long-term policy achievement that depends on the type of bipartisan consensus building is extremely harmed by incivility.

Gruff incivility often precludes, and hyper-partisanship may advance individual personalities at the expense of the wholesome government institutions. Further, extremist rhetoric often derails policy deliberation, as evidenced in the debate over how best to settler the IDPs.

The consequences of incivility are further magnified by technology which afforded anonymity to those who criticize others, and distribute such expressions of disrespect to a broader audience. The constant nature of modern communication ensures that acts of incivility are “captured, amplified, replayed and distributed” - perpetually.

Sections of mass media further encouraged incivility by legitimizing a combative atmosphere while simultaneously snubbing those who may wish to engage in a more substantive, yet sober debate style.

Finally, the combination of spoken or written assaults with visual and auditory imagery promoted a type of incivility that was more nuanced, lasting, and difficult to uproot. The surge of misinformation that emerged after the orderly conducted elections of January was a deliberate attempt to cause upheaval of a gigantic level.

Advocates of incivility

In the face of these concerns, incivility and negativity are not without advocates, many of whom assert that contentious political exchanges serve a vital role in giving vent to a person’s right to object. That is a nihilist idea promoted by those with subversive minds.

Incivility is a short cut by some to gain ascendency over the democratic process through the accepted norms.

It adds a sleazy element to public engagement or debate just to add spice and cause ill-tempered reaction among the participants. They falsely suggest that uncivil political attacks are grounded in evidence, more issue oriented, and more responsive to the public than positive political communications.

Those unable to win through the competitive and often harsh political debate are trying to have it their way through unsubstantiated rumour mongering.

It is the exchange of ideals and their clash in the open public arena that fosters democracy and not the devious and back-door incivility of the deranged.