It is two years this month since Sir David Amess MP was murdered. This tragedy sparked a national conversation about the safety and security of Members of Parliament, within a wider debate about the apparently growing political violence in ‘non-conflict’ contexts. Globally, there has been concern about violence and intimidation in democracies, seen in the attempted insurrection on the US Capitol in 2021 and the foiled plot to overthrow the government in Germany in 2022.
The UK has been a particular focal point for such international concern. 2016 saw the first fatal attack on a UK MP since the height of conflict in Northern Ireland. The murder of Jo Cox prompted a new police unit in Parliament – the Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team – tasked with monitoring threats towards MPs. Following the 2017 Westminster terrorist attack and General Election, then Prime Minister Theresa May asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life to produce a report of recommendations on tackling intimidation in public life. In recent years, MPs have shared their experiences of regular social media threats and other forms of violence, abuse, harassment and intimidation.
My recent article for the European Journal of Politics and Gender examines the evolution of the problem framing of the phenomenon of violence towards UK MPs in the agenda-setting space of the parliamentary debates. I build on a growing body of literature on political violence and abuse in ‘non-conflict’ contexts that examines the gendered implications. While much of this scholarship explores ways to measure and explain the complex phenomenon, I contribute an exploration of its political impacts. I provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of violence towards politicians has been politicised as a policy problem.
I find three important aspects of the policy problem framing: (1) abuse is now a normalised part of politicians’ jobs; (2) women experience particularly aggressive abuse; and (3) social media provides an additional form of abuse. Abuse towards MPs is framed as important because its prevalence threatens the normative public good of democracy. It is a gender-differentiated phenomenon with women experiencing particularly aggressive abuse, especially online. Social media is framed as a key location for abuse.
For me, the most surprising and revealing findings came from the comparison between the debates in which MPs paid tribute to their murdered colleagues. While both sets of speeches focused on remembering the individuals, many of the tributes to Sir David Amess included wider references. Given the attack was physical in form, I was surprised to see references to online abuse, as well as to the experience of women MPs. Unlike that of Jo Cox in 2016, Sir David Amess’s 2021 murder was not framed only as an isolated tragedy, but reflective of a broader phenomenon of violence and abuse in public life, which impacts MPs collectively and threatens democracy.
Examining the debates was somewhat personal for me because of my professional background in politics. When I read the transcript of ‘Tributes to Jo Cox’, I sobbed just as I had when I watched the debate live. Alone in a private library carrel at the University of Oxford in 2022, I was transported back to a House of Commons office in 2016, clutching the hand of a fellow parliamentary researcher who was fighting back tears as her boss delivered a tribute to her murdered friend. It did not matter if, like me, you did not know Jo personally. Her murder shook everyone who worked in or around UK (and global) politics. In 2021, when I saw the news alert about Sir David Amess’s murder, I thought “Not again”.
This article is part of my PhD research which examines the politicisation of the phenomenon and will offer analysis of policy documents and interviews with MPs. Understanding how and why phenomena are politicised as policy problems offers insight into how problems might be addressed. The collection of debates suggest that the policy problem is not just a security one, but perhaps one that draws attention to gender and equalities, as well as to how social media exacerbates abuse.
Many of the debate interventions seem to draw on the long history of feminist scholarship and activism that understands that increasing the representation of women and others historically underrepresented in politics is beneficial to democracy. Violence, abuse and harassment is yet another barrier to truly representative democracy. Many MPs reflected on the particularly aggressive and prevalent attacks, particular on social media, directed at women politicians. These interventions provide further evidence of a specific phenomenon of violence against women in politics. While there are important exceptions, the debate interventions largely fall short in their appreciation of the intersecting nature of abuse that makes particular groups at risk of violence and of further risk of underrepresentation.
As many scholars, activists and politicians have reflected, social media may once have been lauded as a way to reimagine and equalise public discourse, but now clearly reflects and exacerbates inequalities and abusive language. As far back as 2014, MPs were discussing the impact of ‘internet abuse’ on themselves and colleagues. As a reaction to the growing concern of the online aspect of this specific phenomenon and other, related phenomena, the Online Safety Bill, referenced throughout the debates, is now law. We must wait to see how effective this legislation will be at addressing abuse against elected representatives and others.
Other policy actions that have taken place include increased security partnership between parliament and the police and political parties’ codes of conduct. Further policy work is ongoing, including through the Jo Cox Foundation’s Civility Commission (in which I am honoured to be involved). Government, police, academics and the third sector all have a role to play in addressing the complex phenomenon. Violence and abuse towards MPs has become politicised. For the sake of democracy, we must continue to work together to find solutions to this pressing problem.
Hannah Phillips is a DPhil (PhD) Candidate in the Department of Social Policy and Intervention at the University of Oxford. She is also working on projects at The Jo Cox Foundation and the Blavatnik School of Government. Her research focuses on understanding and addressing abuse in public life.
What is the problem? Representations of gender and violence towards politicians in UK parliamentary debates by Hannah Phillips. Read Open Access on Bristol University Press Digital.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: ZUMA Press, Inc. va Alamy