The need for political civility

The word ‘civility’ shares an etymological root with the idea of ‘citizenship’ on the one hand, and of ‘civilisation’ on the other. This alerts us to two distinct but related ways in which the concept gets applied.

The first sense of civility, reflecting the link to the concept of citizenship, is found in the idea of ‘civic behaviour’. Philosophy professor Cheshire Calhoun calls this ‘liberal civility’ and it refers specifically to the norms governing people’s participation in a liberal democratic polity. The essence of good citizenship in a liberal democracy is said to be a willingness to compromise so that we might all continue to live together in relative harmony.

Political theorist John Rawls argues that political legitimacy must be based on public reason. As such, “the ideal of citizenship imposes a moral, not a legal, duty — the duty of civility — to be able to explain to one another … the principles and policies they advocate and vote for.” Moreover, to Rawls civility also requires “a willingness to listen to others and a fair-mindedness.”

For those directly engaged in politics, this means listening to others, being tolerant of views other than one’s own, and recognising that the principle of ‘shared governance’ has a superior claim to one’s allegiance over any sectional or ideological claim.

American sociologist Edward Shils, with his strong focus on political civility, argues that “civility is an attitude and a mode of action which attempts to strike a balance between conflicting demands and conflicting interests.”

This does not mean that one must meekly give in to opponents — liberal civility is fully consistent with robust criticism and passionate advocacy — but it does mean that expression of hatred, contempt or distrust of political adversaries is ruled out as illiberal and uncivil.

This is an extract from the CIS Occasional Paper, Six Questions About Civility, published in 2015 — and just as pertinent today.