The Decline of Civility in Public Discourse

“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 observation from US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas serves as the article’s starting point for a critique of Ghana’s public discourse.

From Parliament and newspaper comment sections to radio and television panels and social media, the author sees a public conversation increasingly marked by hostility, adversarial language and personal attacks. Important questions about governance and democracy are often reduced to name-calling and the wholesale demonisation of people or groups who hold opposing views.

The article does not treat disagreement itself as the problem. A citizen who expresses a view on a policy issue should expect others to disagree, because democratic debate depends on disagreement and the search for consensus. The concern is the language that follows, particularly when the original statement did not use intemperate language.

Social media has become one of the places where civility is most visibly lost, although the author says it should not be blamed for every recent development. The deeper question, the article argues, involves the incentives created by the current media and political environment. On panel discussions involving supporters of Ghana’s two main political parties, partisan exchanges can last longer than non-partisan contributions, unintentionally rewarding those who prolong them. Hyper-partisanship can then encourage citizens to view one another not as neighbours with different opinions, but as opponents to attack.

“

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.