Civic alliance representative warns of dehumanising rhetoric in pre-election debate

Elīna Grīnhofa, head of advocacy at the Latvian Civic Alliance, has drawn attention in the magazine Ir to a growing trend in the current pre-election period: political debates increasingly focus on questioning the legitimacy of people, organisations or entire groups rather than on competing ideas and solutions. According to her, this is especially visible in the treatment of civil society and non-governmental organisations, which face sweeping generalisations, derogatory labels and assumptions about their motives, competence or loyalty.

Criticism is essential in a democracy, Grīnhofa argues, but much of the current rhetoric seeks to discredit rather than discuss. Society is divided into “us” and “them”, and an opponent is no longer seen as someone with a different view but as someone whose participation in public life should be questioned. She regards such language as the beginning of dehumanisation: it lowers the threshold of acceptable discourse and increases tolerance for verbal aggression.

Politicians and other leaders carry particular responsibility, because they help set the norms of public communication. When a politician uses contemptuous or dehumanising language, it legitimises similar behaviour in social media, comments and everyday conversation, giving others a signal that they may speak in the same way.

The Latvian Civic Alliance has launched an initiative this year on the safety of civic space and democratic resilience. Discussions with civil society organisations, experts and representatives of institutions led to the conclusion that prolonged aggressive and polarising communication deters people from participation, reduces trust in democratic processes and gradually weakens civic space. Grīnhofa stresses that legal tools alone are insufficient; a multilayered approach is needed, including stronger political culture, promotion of respectful communication, media literacy and more effective mechanisms for responding to systematic defamation and incitement to hatred in the digital environment.

She links the issue to national resilience. Latvia increasingly speaks about comprehensive national defence, which relies not only on the armed forces and state institutions but also on society’s willingness to engage, take responsibility and contribute. That requires mutual trust. People must be confident that getting involved in public processes will not automatically make them targets of public contempt or defamation.

Grīnhofa writes that events of the past year and pre-election communication show a lack of an independent value compass — an authority that could clearly say when political rhetoric crosses from sharp discussion into humiliation, dehumanisation or normalisation of hate. She suggests examining whether the Saeima’s Mandate, Ethics and Petitions Committee currently has sufficient powers and practice, and whether the Ombudsman could play a larger role, since his or her independent mandate would allow an authoritative assessment of public communication against the fundamental values of a democratic society.

The election campaign will end, but society will still have to live together, solve common problems and strengthen national resilience, she notes. With an aggressor state systematically exploiting internal divisions in democratic countries to reduce trust in institutions and between people, the quality of public communication is one of the preconditions for societal resilience.