Wednesday’s chairing of the Commission of Inquiry in the National Assembly, where the director of Nova24TV, Boris Tomašič, was questioned as a witness, was widely criticised. According to experts, MP Tamara Vonta of the Freedom Movement (Gibanje Svoboda), crossed many lines. Political commentator Stane Granda said that the interrogator had gone beyond the bounds of good taste by practising the vilest, Stalinist and UDBA-like methods with her extremely uncultured behaviour, and that the interrogated should have left the room after she yelled at him for the first time. However, communication expert Edvard Kadič said that her communication style reflected the way in which she understands her role and responsibility in public office.
“Conducting such sessions requires not only knowledge of the topic being discussed, but also the skills of effective and respectful communication. Unfortunately, her style – which includes taking the floor away from someone who is speaking, a loud tone of voice, cynicism and even insults – shows a lack of the key elements of professional communication,” said Edvard Kadič.
Such behaviour has several problematic consequences, the communication expert explained, citing the loss of credibility as the first. “When the chairperson of a meeting cannot seem to master his or her communication and descends to the level of personal attacks or cynical remarks, this undermines the public’s trust in the work of the Commission. The public expects the chairperson to be, first and foremost, an example of professionalism and impartiality.”
Secondly, he cited the obstruction of dialogue by MP Tamara Vonta. She took the floor from Boris Tomašič, interrupted him, shouted at him and generally took an aggressive approach, which, in Kadič’s view, makes constructive debate impossible, contrary to the essence of the Commission’s work – the search for the truth.
Very inappropriate behaviour
Stane Granda said that we could all witness a typical case of non-freedom of speech. “This was an UDBA-like interrogation, because he could not say one sentence without being interrupted, and was constantly insulted, offended and humiliated.” He also accused Vonta of not respecting Tomašič’s right to equal treatment in advance, of not considering the principle of innocence until proven guilty, and of insulting both him personally and the media outlet Nova24TV. “This was very inappropriate behaviour,” Granda believes.
“Tomašič was too patient”
Kadič added that “we must not forget the effect on the interlocutors, because such a style leads to emotional tension, which reduces the interlocutors’ ability to express themselves clearly and rationally. It creates an environment of conflict rather than understanding and problem-solving. And last but not least, it is also worth pointing out that this paints the institution in a very negative light.” Meanwhile, Granda said that he himself would have stood up and left the room in such a hearing. “I would have stood up and left the room, Tomašič was too patient. This was not just the settling of the score with Tomašič, it was also the settling of the score with the opposition.”
“An end must be put to anti-democracy and anti-intellectualism”
“Parliamentary obstruction is an option, because the path we are currently on is taking us towards totalitarianism of the lowest kind. Once and for all, this anti-democracy, anti-intellectualism … must be put to an end. The opposition must be told that it is an equal part of parliamentarianism and that showing respect for it is a minimum condition for democracy to function. The problem of the Slovenian National Assembly must be brought before the European Parliament,” Granda concluded.
Many other commentators on the web were equally critical of the situation. MP Jelka Godec wrote that she believes that the Chairwoman’s overstepping of her powers is ripe for a criminal charge. Journalist Bojan Požar wrote that “at least 8 out of 10 psychiatrists would tell us on the basis of this recording that everything is not quite right with this MP”, while Nejc Brence wrote: “Drunk on power, they don’t understand the world around them.” “If you are drunk on power, it means that if you were sober, you would be better, but she is no better sober. This is an example of behaviour that should not be allowed, and it was an insult to the dignity of the National Assembly and democracy,” Granda said.
This kind of public discourse destroys the reputation of the entire democratic structure
The Chairwoman’s communication affects not only her personally, but also the reputation of the Commission of Inquiry she leads, and even of the National Assembly as an institution, not to mention her parent party, the Freedom Movement, and the decline of its reputation, concluded Kadič. “Public discourse that descends to the level of insults and cynicism destroys the reputation of the entire democratic structure.”
A.G.
