Abstract
The main objective behind the parliamentary practice of Question Period is to ensure that the government is held accountable to the people. Rather than being a political accountability tool and a showcase of public discourse, these deliberations are most often displays of vitriolic political rhetoric. I will be focusing my research on the ways in which incivil political discourse permeates the political mediascape with respect to one instance in Canadian politics - the acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. I believe that incivility in the political discourse of Question Period must be understood within the mechanics of the contemporary public sphere. By interrogating the complexities of how political discourse is being mediatized, produced and consumed within the prevailing ideological paradigms, I identify some of the contemporary social, cultural and political practices that produce incivility in parliamentary discourse.
Highlights
Oral Questions, known informally as Question Period (QP), is a constituent element of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy: it confers Members of Parliament (MPs) “[t]he right to seek information and the right to hold the Government accountable [which] are recognized as fundamental to our system of parliamentary government” (House of Commons, Compendium)
I believe that incivility in the political discourse of Question Period must be understood within the mechanics of the contemporary public sphere
In the case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) acquisition the total cost of acquisition was grossly misrepresented by the government
Summary
Oral Questions, known informally as Question Period (QP), is a constituent element of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy: it confers Members of Parliament (MPs) “[t]he right to seek information and the right to hold the Government accountable [which] are recognized as fundamental to our system of parliamentary government” (House of Commons, Compendium). Journalists, pundits and MPs have contributed to the public discourse on the lack of civility during QP, questioning its validity as a functional deliberative democratic forum (Broadbent; Chong; Delacourt; Galloway; Kheiriddin; Libin; Murphy; Saxby Hill). In an attempt to restore civility in parliament MP Michael Chong put forward a private members motion M-517 for the reform of QP, which was approved 235-44 in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
