Blog: When does political debate cross the line into abuse and intimidation?

By Hannah Phillips
Hannah is The Jo Cox Foundation’s Civility Commission Manager. Hannah is a policy and research professional who has worked on local, national and international levels including at the London Borough of Lambeth Council, the UK House of Commons and the United Nations. In addition to her work at the Foundation, Hannah is a DPhil (PhD) Candidate at the University of Oxford where she examines how the phenomenon of abuse towards elected representatives has been politicised as a policy problem in the UK.

During the course of our work on The Jo Cox Civility Commission we are often asked where the line lies between robust political debate and abuse. We remain clear that a healthy democracy has debate, disagreement and different opinions at its heart, but that doesn’t need to tip over into personal insults and intimidatory behaviour.

In our work, we follow the lead of the Local Government Association who have a clear definition of the meaning of abuse and intimidation. Abuse constitutes physical, verbal or psychological acts that violate an individual’s human rights. Intimidation is defined as behaviour intended or likely to block, influence or deter participation in public debate, or causing alarm of distress that could lead to an individual wanting to withdraw from public life.

Based on these definitions, we are not saying that behaving ‘impolitely’ necessarily constitutes abuse. Politics is full of emotive and sensitive topics that people have strong feelings on. Robust debate and protest is important. In a healthy democracy, people should be able to openly scrutinise and criticise policies and decision-making – whether via social media, by writing to their MP, or attending protests. They should also be allowed to peacefully protest outside Parliament and political offices.

However, behaviour can go too far and quickly veer into abuse and intimidation. We often hear comments that politicians just need to have a ‘thicker skin’. While we agree that disagreements and scrutiny are an essential part of political life, there are certain behaviours that are unacceptable. This includes when criticism is made of the person, rather than the policy, especially if that includes discriminatory language or refers to physical appearance.

The culmination of what might be deemed ‘low-level’ abuse can take a significant toll. While an individual might fire off a single ‘mean Tweet’, the politician might have received hundreds of similar messages day in and day out, and this culmination can feel very intimidatory.

This abuse is a problem because it impacts participation in democratic life. It causes politicians who are already in office to step down, and is off-putting for those who might otherwise put themselves forward to serve. It also means politicians adjust the issues they speak about for fear of abuse. Recent research by the Electoral Commission showed that nearly half (47%) of women candidates avoided discussing controversial topics to keep themselves safe.

As well as the impact on politicians and would-be politicians, the volume of communications and abuse is felt by staff and families. Politicians’ staff are often the ones who first read the communications sent to politicians. A recent study showed half of MPs’ staff suffer from clinical levels of psychological distress. Families of elected representatives are often the ones at home who might have to deal with intimidatory behaviour.

One of the the challenges with that is often raised in relation to this issue is the role that politicians themselves play in abuse. We strongly believe that elected representatives must set an appropriate tone, and one of our recommendations is that politicians must model good behaviour. But it’s on all of us to change the tone of discourse, and to ensure that we can value robust debate, but centre the need to disagree agreeably.

Find out more about the recommendations of The Jo Cox Civility Commission here.