The reporters of the House of Representatives need no longer be surprised to find themselves recording terms such as ‘head rag tax’ in parliamentary proceedings. ‘Climate psychopath’ is also old news by now, as are ‘tribunal’ threats and, more recently, the insinuation that Minister Kaag is a spy. The intensification of personal insults, and especially threats, has driven the House to tighten its Rules of Procedure last month. Carla Hoetink, Assistant Professor in Political History, wrote a book on parliamentary mores, Macht der gewoonte (The Force of Habit) in 2018. Heated interactions turn out to be nothing new, as she shows with reference to the language used in Dutch parliamentary debates nearly 100 years ago. “But we should be careful not to cross a line.”
How far do the roots of street language in Parliament reach? “The extension of the suffrage a little over a century ago brought a first increase in the number of lower educated members of the House, mostly among socialists and communists. They introduced street language into the House. In principle, this is not a bad thing, as it helps more people identify with parliamentary debates. As far as I’m concerned, this only becomes problematic if the importance of recognition is interpreted as ‘anything goes’. This is a legacy of the Leefbaar parties and Pim Fortuyn at the start of this century. Fortuyn believed in ‘saying what you think’. Wilders has taken this over, joined more recently by Forum voor Democratie, a party that is now threatening with ‘tribunals’ and accusing ministers of being spies. This really crosses a line. I think there’s reason for concern when a parliamentary debate runs on gut feelings. There’s nothing wrong with plain language, but that’s not the same as language that stands in the way of a decent and reasonable discussion. All the more so if this language is also aimed at undermining a democratic state based on the rule of law.”
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Gerdi Verbeet recently said that the House may be an outlet for public dissatisfaction, but it should never be a firelighter. “I think that’s spot on! Even if there are no incontestable and absolute limits, you still you have to set boundaries. Especially when it comes to insinuations or half and full threats, or when House Members propagate fake news.”
Is freedom of expression not of a higher order than a tarnished image? “No. Members of the House have a greater responsibility for their words than you and I, precisely because they are not regular citizens, but the people at the helm. Of course, Wilders and Baudet should be free to call a spade a spade, but the fact that their words have greater reach and impact also brings a certain degree of responsibility. This is something that can be legally substantiated, but essentially, it is a moral appeal to elected representatives, because of the exemplary role they play, also in their use of language. I recently heard about a teacher who watched a debate with his class: he couldn’t explain to his pupils why MP’s were at each other’s throats in ways he would never allow in his classroom.”
Would you like to see a moral appeal included in a style guide for members of the House? That way, everyone would know where the limits are. “You can’t set limits in such a strict way. A style guide would be of no help, and it would also constantly have to be modified. Furthermore, we have judges to set limits when in it comes to outings outside parliamentary meetings, as happened when Wilders was convicted for his ‘fewer Moroccans’ statement. It’s up to the House itself to make sure the debate doesn’t cross the line. This takes daring, because you have to hold each other accountable, and it requires taking control, so you can respond in a more unified way to character assassination and threats.”
Is this a criticism of the Speaker of the House? “No. If only things could be that simple. The Speaker is only as strong as the House allows them to be. The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to jointly formulate common values. What we need is a stronger middle ground. The tone of the debate is now mostly set by the flanks. These parties tend to favour disruption over creating order. And they are also constantly railing against what they call ‘the mainstream’. Well, what I would like is for ‘the mainstream’ to talk back in a more unanimous voice.”
Is the problem perhaps that we have too many parties, so that they can only differentiate themselves by using ever stronger language? “The number of parties is not a problem per se. In the 1970s, we also had sixteen or seventeen parties in the House. What is more worrisome is the dilution of the classical ideologies of the centrist parties, which have been replaced by a spectator democracy, where individual politicians benefit from drawing most of the attention to themselves, rather than to the ideology they stand for.”
Constant personal attacks may result in the loss of a classical task of the House of Representatives: monitoring government and taking part in law-making. Is this a problem? “Absolutely. There’s nothing wrong with political accountability, in fact, it’s needed, but the increase in commotion debates and the drive for personal vendettas is leading to the loss of the monitoring function. Of course, we still have Parliamentary Committees, but it doesn’t help when the main podium is dominated by ad hominem attacks, rather than the issues at hand. If the House of Representatives is reduced to just an outlet for our dissatisfaction, we shouldn’t be surprised if it ends up dropping some stitches in monitoring the feasibility of laws and policy.”
Photo: Brandi Alexandra via Unsplash