Parliamentary Debates: Anti-deliberation as Smoking Gun of Autocratization

This paper explores parliamentary debates as both mirrors and mechanisms of democratic erosion in competitive authoritarian regimes. Based on the case study of the Serbian Parliament, this paper traces how the quality of parliamentary discourse evolves across several parliamentary legislatures which correlate with the regime transformation from liberal/electoral democracy to electoral autocracy (2008-2024), characterized by systemic undermining of parliamentary democracy and heavy socio-political polarization. The paper focuses on a comprehensive analysis of parliamentary transcripts in line with the critical discourse analysis and Discourse Quality Index approach, to examine the extent to which parliamentary plenary in competitive authoritarian serves as a place of deliberation, or rather anti-deliberation. Building upon the notion of deliberation as communication that resides upon justified arguments, mutual respect and debates on the common good with transformative potential for interlocutors’ relations, the paper seeks to improve our understanding on how the deliberative ideals are being upheld or violated by the MPs in the context of autocratization, and determine any patterns in regard to the topics discussed in the speeches of the MPs, as well as to MPs’ party affiliations, education levels and gender. By analysing the quality of plenary debates, rhetorical strategies, and dominant narratives within the Serbian parliament, the chapter examines how the quality of parliamentary discourse changes (including increased populist rhetoric, presidentialization of politics in the plenary speeches of the MPs, polarization within the debates, delegitimization of opposition voices, and selective framing of legislative issues), reflecting broader autocratization tendencies. Along these lines, this paper aims to deepen our understanding of violation in deliberative ideals in the parliamentary discourse, by exploring the extent to which (anti-)deliberation in parliamentary debates contributes to further undermining of the deliberative role of the Parliament, as well as the role and reputation of MPs, in a competitive authoritarian regime.