The Undignified Speaking in Parliament.
From Speaking to Listening (Part 1)
by A. Irmanputra Sidin PhD in Constitutional Law/ Constitutional Lawyer
As I described in the previous articles that effective political leadership shall not to build a style of communication “talk loudly, aggressively, intimidatingly or explosively and even “talk rudely”, when meeting with the members of the cabinet or other stakeholders. These way manner of speaking sometimes is actually undignified and only give impact to the making “click-bait” that probably just makes popular in the media but ineffective to make a politician be a leader, only made “news lead” not being a leader neither in the pathway to create realization the purpose of a country according to its constitution.
In the youtube, some of pictures about how members of parliament talk to others in the hearing session with undignified way. Why I have to underline as a undignified way, because parliament should be persistent to protect the dignity of the people, of course include with their own ways to express their views. What is the root of the dignity of the people? That is calm, serious and focus with their common purpose as a nation and controlled behavior so other people and other nations will respect.
One of the example I found the picture that a congressional hearing in US, devolved into an angry confrontation between a senator and a witness after Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma challenged Sean O’Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to “stand your butt up” and settle longstanding differences right there in the room.
Senior senator from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the chairman of the Senate panel that was holding the hearing, yelled at Mullin to sit down after he challenged O’Brien to a fight. Mullin had stood up from his seat at the dais and appeared to start taking his ring off. “This is the time, this is the place,” Mullin told O’Brien after reading a series of critical tweets O’Brien had sent about him in the past. “If you want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.”
The two men never came face to face in the hearing room. But they hurled insults at each other for around six minutes as Sanders repeatedly banged his gavel and tried to cut them off. Sanders, a longtime union ally, pleaded with them to focus on the economic issues that were the focus of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, which Sanders was holding to review how unions help working families.
“You are a United States senator!” Sanders yelled at Mullin at one point. Sen Sanders even said “This is a hearing, and God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress, let’s not make it worse,” Sanders said.1
The kind of confrontation that occur in parliament, not exclusively in the US Congress, but in almost every parliament across the globe we can find some of the similar manner of speaking like it. The manner of speaking like it we may call undignified manner of speaking in the parliament (includes parliaments in Indonesia) we will face the identical possibilities of circumstances in a hearing with the government or other stakeholders. We will face some of members speak loudly even rudely and undignified. Why across the globe? Because all the parliaments are shaped by a common history regarding the history of parliament in the world.
We can’t justify this undignified manner of speaking arose only caused by as a representative of the people automatically the anger of the people about something should be delivered in the hearing with similar expression . As a representative people which has the constitutional power to oversee and making law, precisely, members of parliament should be find the best solution, not only delivered the people anger before parliament. That is not an essential way as a members to express their views, why the parliament was born, because people with purposely want to find individuals who can solve the problem without anger because the people actually acknowledged in their mind that the anger often obstruct the path to effective resolution solve the problem that they faced .
As a common history, this manner of speaking is part of the history at the beginning of the emergence of representative history. Parliament had faced the absolute power, even tyranny as an autocratic form of rule in which one individual exercised power without any legal restraint. Parliament was born from people’s anger or the collective outrage over absolute power and tyranny. This atmosphere of furious continues to be imprinted in the face of the parliament until now, so that the manner of speaking in parliament is awakened as if it must be with anger, speaking aggressively, intimidatingly, loudly even rudely to the government or other stakeholders if the parliament invited in a hearing .
But actually if we observed that the way of expression like that only a few members of parliament always showed, but the magnitude of their speak sometimes very explosively because this way of speaking was very stunning and “clicked bait” in social media. I trust mostly member of parliament still in calm with dignity and courtesy as a member of parliament, but we have to remind about temptation from every individual members to be popular because their interest as a representative people become more popular with possibilities to get widely exposures by media. We have to plant to the members that build communication effectively to the government is essential way as part of duty as a member of parliament.
Thank You
Jakarta January 31, 2025
*Featured photo, source : Youtube FOX Breaking News*
#irmanputrasidin