Intemperate language, civic discourse

The American President movie, starring Michael Douglas, has several memorable lines.

Among them is this – “Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing centre stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”

These words were spoken within the context of free speech. 

In his Independence Day address last year, former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo bemoaned the nature of our public discourse, arguing that it was one of the less desirable features of our democratic culture, which needed addressing. His worry focused on how we handle dissent, leading him to say, “Dissent is never a threat to any issue under discussion”.

But there is another aspect of our civic discourse that goes beyond the exercise of our free speech rights or our ability to handle or not, the dissenting views we encounter in public spaces.

This week, I wrote a piece reflecting on what Ghanaians have been saying about military rule as captured by the Afrobarometer Survey. In response to the piece shared on one of the social media handles of the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), it was quite disheartening to read the comments from someone who chose to respond to the piece.

Crude language

It immediately brought to the forefront again, the increasing use of intemperate language in civic discourse.

The crude language, used openly without restraint in response to the piece was quite disheartening.

One is forced to ask, Why do certain people resort to the use of crude insults, as their response to issues raised in public spaces?

Is there no way to express one’s disagreement without resorting to the use of such language? What can be done about it, if anything?

Why do certain people use crude insults in civic discourse?

First, it reflects the character and a deliberate choice of how one chooses to approach conversations in public spaces. Politeness and being civil is a learned character practised daily.

Simply put, it is a habit of the heart and must be cultivated as one encounters and engages people with whom they will sometimes have very strong disagreements. 
Second, societies confront very difficult questions on political, economic and social issues.

In a democracy where it takes dialogue to resolve these questions and how to answer them, it is only normal that disagreements will occur.

Public discourse does not frown on disagreements. In my opinion, it frowns upon the use of crude insults to resolve difficult questions.

In my opinion, insults serve no purpose in public discourse. They also distract from the substantive matters at stake.

Sometimes, the real issues get lost, and the insults become the focus of the dialogue, leaving the very difficult questions that must be answered unanswered.

Third, the anonymity that technology guarantees allows people to feel emboldened to engage in such a manner without fearing being held accountable.

Yes, some use their real identity and engage in public discourse using crude language.

That is the double-edged sword nature of technology.

On the one hand, it offers easy connectivity to broad public spaces and a wide audience with whom one can engage and exchange ideas.

On the other hand, it offers perverted uses where certain individuals can “hide” behind their keyboards to use intemperate language with reckless abandonment.

Good manners

Fourth, political polarisation is not helping. Our deepening partisan attitudes often force our public dialogues to degenerate.

Of course, matters of public policy must be debated, sometimes very intensely if we are to arrive at the solutions needed to move our development needle forward.

In Afrobarometer Round 9 (2022), a very small number of Ghanaians (six per cent) answered “dislike/strong dislike” on the question of having a neighbour who belonged to a different political party.

In Round 10 (2024) that doubled to 12 per cent, indicating a growing attitude of less tolerance for political differences.

And under such circumstances, it comes as no surprise that intemperate language will be used in public discourse. 

Is there a cure to this without running the risk of individuals feeling as though there is a move to end their right to free speech?

Yes, there is a cure – regular public condemnation by fellow citizens of such language.

And no, there is no interest among those who abhor intemperate language to curtail the free speech rights of their fellow citizens.

We must all feel free to contribute to public discourse on important matters of national development. 

We must also not forget the public education angle of this unhealthy political culture because as US Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, once said: “None of us should be uncivil in our manner as we debate issues of consequence.

No matter how difficult it is, good manners should be routine.”

The writer is a Project Director, Democracy Project.