The level of political communication in Montenegro has, for some time now, been marked by a serious decline in standards. While this is most visible in Parliament, the problem is much broader – it is present in public appearances, the media, and on social networks. Instead of argument-based dialogue, political discourse is increasingly dominated by personal attacks, labelling, and attempts to undermine credibility, while the escalation of tensions has become an almost default method of political action.
Parliament should serve as a classroom of democracy – a space where disagreements are resolved through arguments rather than the disqualification of interlocutors. In democratic societies, political differences should lead to better solutions for the public good, not to petty personal confrontations. Even when consensus is absent, there must be a minimum level of responsibility in how these differences are articulated. Otherwise, patterns that run counter to the basic principles of political ethics and the protection of privacy become normalised, further eroding citizens’ trust in institutions and reinforcing the perception that the political process is an arena for personal and particular interests, rather than the common good.
It is also indicative that poor communication practices are quickly normalised. This approach is no longer limited to actors who have traditionally relied on conflict-driven and low-level discourse but is increasingly embraced by those who present themselves as civic and pro-European. In doing so, distinctions in political behaviour are erased, and communication standards are lowered to a common minimum, further accelerating the erosion of political culture.
A recent paradox illustrates this clearly, particularly in debates concerning the protection of privacy, including those related to amendments to the Law on the National Security Agency. While warnings are raised at the normative level about the risks of excessive intrusion into citizens’ private lives, in political practice those same actors often attempt to replicate similar patterns based on similar principles – the disclosure of personal data, insinuations, and public discrediting. This discrepancy between what is advocated and what is practised not only undermines the credibility of political actors, but also relativises human rights standards that should, in fact, be consistently upheld.
A similar contradiction exists in relation to violence. Although it is publicly condemned, political communication often affirms aggressive patterns of behaviour. As a visible social model, political actors thereby directly contribute to the spread of such conduct.
The decline in the quality of political communication is not an isolated issue within politics, but rather a reflection of broader societal conditions. When conflict-driven, personal, and aggressive communication becomes normalised in politics, it inevitably spills over into society. The capacity for dialogue, compromise, and rational decision-making weakens, while divisions and mistrust grow stronger.
A society that accepts such a model of communication gradually loses the foundations of democratic life. Therefore, restoring political culture – based on arguments, responsibility, and mutual respect – is not a matter of choice, but a prerequisite for a stable and functional democratic system. Because without a culture of dialogue, democracy does not weaken gradually – it is gradually hollowed out from within.
Petar Đukanović, Programme Director of the Centre for Civic Education (CCE)