Civility Doesn't Mean Avoiding Robust Debate

Often seems calibrated more to provoke loathing of opponents than to inspire loyalty to their own cause.

- 

FROM B1

The tactics are familiar: labelling opponents as "sheep" or "self-righteous losers", or deploying tired pejoratives like "Oppies" for opposition supporters or "Pappies" for ruling party backers. This behaviour will likely intensify once campaigning begins in earnest.

While publicly calling out these provocateurs might not help, we should recognise how such language—however commonplace during heated campaigns—gradually erodes our political culture.

This isn't to suggest negative campaigning has no place; tough positions and legitimate character questions backed by evidence remain fair game. Opposition research and its strategic deployment have long been part of democratic politics.

As the late American political essayist Lance Morrow put it: "Politics in a democracy must rely on spoken and written language—on rhetoric, homiletics, invective. Its disputes and even hatreds must be rendered physically harmless, and at least half-civilised, by being translated into words."

Yet we mustn't lose sight of the bigger picture. Civility doesn't mean avoiding robust debate or strong language; it means ensuring our disagreements don't calcify into lasting animosity that persists long after the votes are counted.

BEYOND THEORY TO REALITY What happens when political differences harden into tribal identities? Research from divided democracies paints a troubling picture.