Parliamentary rhetoric and public competence: A crisis of malaise

On 14 February, President Hage Geingob will officially open the Parliament of Namibia.

For better or for worse, parliament was in the news last year. That is unlikely to change in 2023. The Namibian parliament, like other democratic parliaments worldwide, perform three core functions: to represent citizens' interests, to pass laws and to monitor the actions of the government.

This function is strongly linked to the representation function in that it is through the will of the people that the parliament receives its authority. Parliamentary debate is a highly public process, concerning public problems, with serious and far-reaching consequences. For that reason, the rhetoric of parliamentary debate demands special scrutiny.

Quality matters

Debates generally offer parliamentarians a chance to show voters (and donors) that they are good people. In that sense, the parliamentary debate is a mirror of society – a legislator’s opportunity to prove they share prevailing social values. Furthermore, the parliamentary debate is a chance for lawmakers to transform the opinions of others, sway the views of political commentators and journalists, and reach out to the voters, persuading them of a new perspective or explaining a position. For some parliamentarians, debate can even be an opportunity to position themselves. Because it is a public process, the legislative debate also functions as an educational tool. Both the media and individual citizens look to legislators as a source of information. Most journalists, unfortunately, frequently cite members of parliament's comments uncritically.

Decaying form

The current quality of political argument and public competence constitute a threat to democracy. In 2022, the nation experienced a crisis of malaise that went deeper and was more ominous than the economic challenges at hand. The parliament was reduced to threats, insults and howling. There is a lot of cut and thrust on the floor of the chamber, but there are rules about what can and cannot be said. Many members of parliament have had to withdraw "unparliamentary" words and phrases and apologise. Some have pushed the boundaries of the meaning of bad language by using expressions that conveyed their intent without attracting the presiding officers’ attention. Institutional acts of verbal abuse and defamation, such as parliamentary insults, serve only to fertilise fallacies that substitute policy debates.

Par for the course

It is not that the existence of our democratic processes is in danger or that our cultural preference for the democratic style has changed; rather, it is that the substance of public policy debate is diminished. The melancholy is not new. It is not entirely clear that the degree of the problem will be decelerating soon. But it is clear that the condition was vastly better in the past. It is a condition that has become so engrained in contemporary political discourse and in our critical consciousness towards that practice that some may find it difficult to conceive of it as a problem. For those, these thoughts may be dismissed as hopelessly idealistic. It is incumbent upon all Namibians to demand an improved political argument. The electors must also demand that public competence should be a part of the rhetorical agenda for strengthening the communicative practice of parliament.