When politicians « discuss » with each other, – can we really call it « a discussion » ? -, what do they try to achieve? Do they ever envisage to exchange genuinely idea’s, opinions, projects or plans? No! Since they represent a party, with a line of conduct, with a strategy, with a program (this is at least what they are supposed to possess), they don’t intend to debate, they even don’t intend to convince each other.
The repetitive observable element about what they plan, when confronted with each other, is to disparage, to mock, to weaken, to delegitimise, to outsmart the interlocutor. Why in the world would this approach make any sense? Simply because there is always a third party in the interaction, hidden or not.
Who is this third party? Members of the audience, TV viewers, party fellows, more generally, persons they want to influence or manipulate. Whoever they are, this is the real target of the play, politicians are in. Interestingly enough, they seldom express and expose their programs, their idea’s. As if they had nothing interesting, relevant, significant to tell.
So they base their communication on highlighting what’s wrong at counterparts and while they put them under all spotlights, they hope to escape difficult or undesired questions, blind spots, weaknesses.
When lawyers plead, what do they try to achieve? First of all, they do their job: to speak in favour of their clients, to defend them, to reduce the threats against them, to find any legal artifice or stratagem to reduce potential punishments. When confronted with another lawyer, they even add some techniques aiming at making the interlocutor or/and his client more vulnerable.
Sometimes, they unfortunately demonstrate limits are very flexible in terms of what they allow themselves. Sometimes, they don’t hesitate to attack, to reproach, to frame situations in such a way they appear to be more or less favorable. Why does such an approach make sense? Simply because there is always a third party in the interaction. Members of a jury, judges, journalists, persons coming to attend to procedures.
So they base their communication on highlighting what’s wrong at counterparts (or their clients) and while they put them under pressure, they hope to influence the third party.
When children, teenagers and even adults quarrel with one another, what do they try to achieve? In many cases, they want to express and demonstrate they are right while others are wrong, and they want these others to recognise it, sometimes publicly.
Sometimes, they invest such an amount of time, energy and motivation in trying to prove they are right, they go beyond limits: they loose sight of reason, they become emotional and they tend to overplay and overreact. As a result, their communication evolve from (often) competitive (because it is a conflict situation) to manipulative and the opportunity to be listened to and understood seriously drops, together with the level of potential result.
The only remaining way to move the process forward resides in the intervention of a third party: parents, other family members, friends, mediators, lawyers, policemen, judges, experts…
If we look at these 3 contexts, there are interesting points in common:
- There is often a third party
- They want to weaken, paralyse or destroy their interlocutor
- They want to be right and prove others are wrong
In many other private and professional situations, there are 2 discussing parties. Let’s eliminate real conflict situations, because they need to be handled differently. Debates are among the remaining cases, where people express different opinions, arguments, projects, plans and where they need each other to advance processes. Among good practices, let’s find our way back to 2 very important ones:
- Let’s replace « telling people » by « asking people »
- Let’s try to « understand » first instead of « convince »
It does not mean we may not speak or convince, on the contrary, it means there is a timing to respect if we want efficiency, the « push » and the « pull » modes.
Interested in learning more about these fundamentals?
Add comment