Part 2: The Undignified Speaking in Parliament. From Speaking to Listening

The Undignified Speaking in Parliament.

From Speaking to Listening (Part 2)

by A. Irmanputra Sidin PhD in Constitutional Law/ Constitutional Lawyer

Part 1

However, I do not want to blame the stye of speaking like that, but to find the truth, It is not the only one way and mostly ineffective. Human being relation right now is very different than before history of parliament exist, when human relation only in the small or local  area. Now and in the future human relation, keep moving  with unlimited barrier, so many sources of information to make decisions of the parliament without depend of the just “to speak”. Technology and sciences has kept going progress to deliver information and that is a main sources to make decision. 

Some times talk loudly , intimidatingly or aggressively from members of parliament  as a tricks way  just to chase the confess from the government or other stakeholders about the data or information that they found as a controversial issues. And the  hearing was always is part of the officially room to convey people anger. Anyhow we should not forces our views, data or suspicion to be admitted by the government or other parties.

Parliament has wide area to make decision without depend on the confession, because communication built with undignified way (or you may call “grilled by the parliament”), sometimes make people tend to suspect that member of parliament only want to  increase bargaining position to the government or to other parties. The people tend to suspect that they want  to make exchange something valuable to be part of compromise or “trade off” in other interests which would  give benefit to their political party or only him/herself as an individual politician.

Maybe, sometimes we did not notice about it, it does not mean that when member parliament talk intimidatingly, loudly and rudely to the government or other stakeholders automatically delivered positive implication to the people. May be only succeed made people deserved to relief and comfortable just for a moment, because people anger successfully delivered in the parliament room officially, but the essential needs or the interests  of the people not necessarily fulfilled, because politics as we know is very volatile and “agile”.   

Political thriving actually relies on many interests, between parliament and government even with the actors of the market. Those are  could exchange to fulfill their interests each others, and the people would not notices it. The people only get drama spectacle in social media or other media as a viral content but did not get the essential benefit as the user of the parliament. Therefore, parliament should be knit essential communication to find the truth, and solution, of the problem of people.

The Market

As I pointed out above that the manner of speaking intimidatingly, angry  even then tend to be rudely comes from the past and now is not suitable again continuing be implemented. After the parliament was born  as a people representatives,  the outrage of the people slowly faded. In the meantime people found their new way of  living and it was no longer relied on the King who was the only determinant of  people’s lives but  rather people’s creativity and innovation to fulfill their  needs from each other and that caused the market was born and growing up.

How has the market been affected ? And what is the relation with the manner of speaking?

After people’s lives no longer depends on the King’s compassion, people’s lives mostly  influenced by and depend on “the market”. What is the market? the market is the place all human being’s product produced and available that made by creativity and innovation of the human being to fulfill human needs. The market has operated  with money or currency as a tool of exchange between one another.

At the beginning, it was limited to the small area and now it is thriving globally, without limits and breaking through the state’s border. At the same time, the people could focus on building their lives  and civilization at the market, a constitution born to limit the power, so, and thanks to constitution that kept power under control, make people’s lives become dignify  more  relaxed, chill, harmonious, calm, focus with the purpose  and  behavior controlled.

Moreover, before and until the early history of representation,  “the market” had not grown globally, the center of gravity of “the market” (economy) was upon the King who held absolute power. So, that is why, we found many very popular phrases in constitutional literature which actually was igniting  outrage to the absolute power for example “..  power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority ( John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1870). We could find a phrase that stated  “..If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…”(Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, 1787).

People at that time, automatically often instinctively viewed that every government, as a tyranny, which becomes a preposition of mind from members of parliament, that is one of the impacts of the manner of speaking from the members of parliament which sometimes tend to be angry, loudly, explosively, intimidatingly, aggressively and even rudely because they still overshadowed that the presence of parliament to fight tyranny and the government is still deemed as tyranny. The more you speak  louder to the government  the more you will be popular.

The story of tyranny recorded  in many literatures about constitution, law  and politics that was mostly inspired by the story of the American Revolution (1765-1783), French Revolution  (1648) or English Revolution (1640) and other story of revolutions that still deemed government as an enemy. Those history described that the state was everything, the King was everything, with absolute power because at that time indeed it was like that.