Elīna Grīnhofa: after the elections, we will still have to live together

Opinion article

Elīna Grīnhofa, Head of Advocacy at the Civic Alliance - Latvia

The pre-election period is always a time when political competition becomes more intense and emotions play a greater role in public discourse. However, these elections have highlighted another particularly concerning trend – political debates are increasingly shaped not by disagreements over ideas and solutions, but by questioning the legitimacy of individuals, organisations, or entire groups within society.

This applies to various groups in society, but it is especially visible in relation to civil society and non-governmental organisations. Public discourse increasingly includes generalisations, derogatory labels, and assumptions about the motives, competence, or loyalty of organisations. Criticism is essential in a democracy, but it is increasingly being replaced by rhetoric that no longer aims to debate, but rather to discredit.

At the same time, the division of society into “us” and “them”, “the right” and “the wrong”, is becoming more pronounced. This trend is not specific to any one ideology or political side. Nor has intolerance become a characteristic of any single group in society. Instead, it is increasingly becoming a form of communication in which opponents are not seen as people with different opinions, but as individuals whose participation in public life should be questioned.

This is where dehumanisation begins. Not with open violence, but with language – with labels, derogatory descriptions, and the systematic portrayal of people or organisations as a problem. Such rhetoric gradually lowers the threshold of what is considered acceptable in public discourse. At the same time, tolerance for verbal aggression increases – statements that would have previously triggered widespread condemnation are increasingly perceived as a normal part of political communication.

Politicians and other public leaders carry particular responsibility in this process. In a democracy, they do not only shape policies – they also shape the norms of public communication. When a politician chooses dehumanising or derogatory rhetoric, they effectively establish a new standard for what is considered acceptable communication. This legitimises similar behaviour in society – on social media, in comments, and in everyday conversations. Others receive an indirect signal that they, too, may communicate in the same way.

For this very reason, the Civic Alliance - Latvia has launched an initiative this year focused on the safety of civic space and democratic resilience. Discussions with civil society organisations, experts, and institutional representatives revealed a shared understanding – the prolonged presence of aggressive and polarising communication discourages people from participating, reduces trust in democratic processes, and gradually weakens civic space. At the same time, it has become clear that this problem cannot be solved through legal instruments alone. A multifaceted approach is needed, including strengthening political culture, promoting respectful communication, improving media literacy, and developing more effective mechanisms for responding to systematic defamation and the spread of hatred in the digital environment.

This discussion is also closely linked to national resilience. In Latvia, we increasingly discuss comprehensive national defence, based on the understanding that national security is not only the responsibility of the armed forces or state institutions. It also depends on society’s willingness to participate, take responsibility, and contribute. However, this is impossible without mutual trust. People must have confidence that participation in public life does not automatically make them a target of public contempt or smear campaigns.

Therefore, alongside practical solutions, clear political leadership is also needed. When the boundaries of respectful public debate are crossed, society has reason to expect a clear assessment from the country’s highest officials. Not in order to restrict freedom of expression or interfere in political debates, but to affirm that in a democratic state, human dignity and mutual respect in public communication are not matters of choice.

Events of the past year, and especially pre-election communication, create the impression that public discourse increasingly lacks an independent moral compass – an authority capable of clearly stating when political rhetoric moves beyond sharp debate into humiliation, dehumanisation, or the normalisation of hatred.

Therefore, it is also worth discussing whether the existing institutional mechanisms are sufficient. Do the current powers and practices of the Saeima Mandate, Ethics and Submissions Committee provide an adequate response to such cases? Could a greater role in this process, for example, be given to the Ombudsman, whose independent mandate would allow for an authoritative assessment of whether public communication aligns with the fundamental values of a democratic society?

The election campaign will end. However, after the elections, society will still have to live together, address common challenges, and strengthen the resilience of the state. This will happen at a time when an aggressor state next to us is systematically exploiting internal divisions in democratic countries to undermine trust in institutions and mutual trust between people. Therefore, the quality of public communication is not merely a matter of political culture – it is one of the foundations of societal resilience.

Dalies: