THE WATER CASE

ⁿ¹Performance and Emotions in the European Parliament

The European Parliament (EP) serves as a significant platform for political discourse, where representatives from various member states come together to debate, negotiate, and vote on matters of regional and global importance. While much attention is usually given to the content of these debates, the performance and body language of the participants play a critical role in shaping the outcomes and public perception. This essay examines the intersection of performance, body language, and theatricality in the EP, drawing parallels to artistic expressions and exploring how these elements influence political communication.

Visual references of the Parliament Hemicycle

Greek and Roman Theater

The architecture of the European Parliament's hemicycles is reminiscent of ancient Greek and Roman theaters[1]. The semicircle shape and the presence of an “orchestra”, where the chorus and the actors performed, from which the orators usually do their speeches are particularly striking. The idea of the “seats of honor” in Roman theater is also present, as the presidents and spokespersons of the various political parties occupy the first row of the parliamentary hemicycle. The President, or vice-president, of the Parliament who leads the plenary sessions sits on the equivalent of the “stage” in ancient theaters, a platform raised above the “orchestra”. In both cases, the attention converges towards the architecturally designed middle of the room from which the orator(s) performs theater or speeches.

Though the two architectures share similarities, they differ in key aspects. The theatre in ancient Greece had several functionalities, from dramatic and religious purposes to political center[2]. In contrast, the EP is intended solely for political purposes represented by the elected politicians[3], with the public positioned outside the hemicycle, on its periphery. One other significant distinction is the presence of interpreter tribunes in the EP, encircling much of the hemicycle.

The European Parliament building in Brussels, including the hemicycle, will be renovated between 2025 and 2030 at a cost of just under 500 million euros. The new project will feature a bay window roof, inviting visitors to the roof garden to watch the plenary sessions[4], giving another dimension to the principle of transparency.

Parliament as a Stage

The concept of the parliamentary floor as a stage is not new. The parallels between political debate and theatrical performance may arise from the architecture, as discussed above, but also from the way politicians present themselves, in the delivery of speeches, and the strategic use of words and gestures. In the EP, where members have diverse political and cultural backgrounds, discourse is a tool for asserting authority, conveying conviction, and rallying support. Theatrical elements, such as tone modulation, pacing, and pauses, may be employed to emphasize points, engage the audience, and create key moments. Unlike the performance of actors in theatre, the performances of MEPs do not have the main purpose of entertainment[5] but are central to the art of persuasion in a political context. As the recordings are publicly available, the debates are useful to politicians to make statements susceptible to impacting their popularity amongst the public.

In order to make a statement, some MEPs have taken extreme positions, transforming their political speech into a form of entertaining performance, often blurring the line between Parliament speeches and what can be considered theater. This, for example, is the case of the MEP Radačovský, who at the end of his speech on the 24th of April 2024, threw a dove, that he held inside a fanny pack, as a sign of peace[6].

Echoes of Classical Rhetoric

Classical rhetoric refers to the practice of rhetoric in Ancient Greece and Rome (approx. 5th century B.C. to early Middle Ages)[7] and is defined as the art of effective communication, written and spoken[8]. Classical rhetoric and its principles remain in large parts relevant to this day. According to Aristotle[9], rhetoric is an art form of persuasion. He believed that the truth was not sufficient in itself to convince an audience, that it needed to be conveyed through rhetoric[10].

Aristotle also listed three art-based means of persuasion[11] that he believes are essential to mastering the art of persuasion[12]: Pathos is the appeal to emotion in order to make the audience feel a certain way. Logos is the appeal to logic. The argument should be cohesive and free from logical fallacies (errors in reasoning that stem from incorrect assumptions or flawed connections between ideas). Ethos is the appeal to the credibility and/or authority of the orator. Aristotle’s art-based means of persuasion offer a tool to engage in the dissection of selected speeches[13] from the EP and analyze patterns and strategies. We also have observed the use of several rhetorical devices within the speeches such as dilemma[14], sarcasm[15], and rhetorical questions[16]. We noted that the appeal to logos is indeed very common, with numerous statistics being brought up by MEPs to reinforce the validity of their viewpoint. While the appeal to Pathos was also present, it was mostly as a complement to logos or as a way to catch the attention of the audience, for instance by evoking personal experience. We found the appeal to Ethos to be less pronounced in the discourses of MEPs, as opposed to the impression given by the discourses of Commissioners. This will be briefly developed in the following sections.

Body Language and Emotions

Body Language as Communication

In addition to rhetoric, the body language conveys messages more or less consciously. The body language includes “facial expressions, body movements, form and posture, general appearance and tactile communication”[17]. In the EP, body language either reinforces or undermines the spoken message. MEPs often use body language strategically to project confidence, solidarity, or defiance, depending on the context of the debate. The way these non-verbal cues are interpreted by other members, the media, and the public can significantly impact the perceived effectiveness of a speech or argument. For instance, when a MEP points a finger at a side of the parliament, the physicality of the gesture and its aggressive implications significantly amplify the impact of the verbal attack being delivered simultaneously. In a more subtle territory, the way some MEPs grab the rostrum by its two sides and slightly lean forward inspires power, confidence, and a sense of territorial ownership over the Parliament, showcasing the rightfulness of the orator.

Emotions in the European Parliament

Emotions are often opposed to reason, the first being seen as less valuable than the latest in politics. Thus, there is a tendency to expect authorities to make decisions based on reasoning and logic as opposed to based on emotions[18]. However, some researchers are claiming that emotions are in fact a part of rationality[19] and not its opposite. Sanchez Salgado[20] wrote, “[e]motions are not only a reaction to a cognitive stimuli (thought-dependent), they can also motivate cognition and give rise to thoughts and inferences (thought-directing)”. This view implies that emotions can be a starting point for reflection and are not only the reaction to a thought. If one agrees with this statement, it means that emotions are valuable to debates, not only as a means to get the audience feeling involved in the topic but also as a fertile ground for growth and critical thinking.

In the EP, there is a pressure towards rationality but the emotions are however not totally absent. The display of emotions is socially tolerated or even expected when they reflect a moral evaluation, for instance, anger at injustice or compassion for victims[21]. On the other hand, we found that some emotional displays were being sanctioned[22], perceived as “cheap” or “manipulative” when they were linked to a common moral evaluation. The line between what is morally accepted or sanctioned is however subjective and therefore one speech may receive different evaluations.

Our short analysis, as well as reports of other researchers[23], found a difference in the level of emotional display between speeches from Commissioners and those of MEPs. The Commission is the “Guardian of the Treaties” and seems to have adopted a more “distant”, technical approach based on statistics and curated examples as well as mostly positively-worded formulations[24]. By distancing itself from the use of emotions, the Commission establishes power and legitimacy[25] anchored in logic and far from impulsivity or “subjective influence”, reinforcing a rational approach that people seem to socially approve. The Parliament is the representative of the population and seems to leave a little bit more room for MEPs to show and implement emotions in their speeches. Although it depends on the MEPs, we have generally noticed more appeal to pathos within speeches as well as more fluctuations in voice modulation and a more obvious body language.

According to Maaike Homan, a researcher who studies emotions and politics, emotions also impact how we, the audience, process political information[26]. Homan said, “[...] If a politician supports factual information with positive emotions, such as a smile, we tend to process that information more easily. If information is conveyed very rationally and without expression, it can require more energy from us to process the text. It then becomes a purely cognitive process, whereas it’s a very natural thing for us to read emotions.”[27]. This finding concerns ideas conveyed with positive emotions, as those conveyed with negative emotions such as anger[28] seem not to have the same impact on the audience. The fact that we have some form of automatism in understanding emotions or body language, especially positive, reinforces the role that they play in politics, in particular when the message is addressed to the public. During the analysis of the selected extracts of the debates for our project, we were unable to observe many smiling orators, primarily due to the nature of the subject itself, as they usually preferred a grave tone that aligned more appropriately with the underlying emotions of concern and urgency.

Debates but No Dialogues?

All the above considerations on theatricality, rhetoric, and body language are to be put in the perspective of the strict rules and protocol dictating the plenary debates in the EP. The MEPs’ speeches follow strict rules: no one may speak unless the President invites them to, and time is precisely allocated (Rule 171 of Procedure of the European Parliament). The MEPs then walk to the rostrum after the other, on the call of the President, to perform their pre-prepared speeches.

In the selected extracts, we noticed that it is unusual[29] for one speaker to pick up on what another has said. By so, the debates resemble more a series of unconnected monologues than an actual multi-party conversation on policies.

This is susceptible to create absurd moments in debates, for instance when multiple MEPs repeatedly cite the same example or statistic, seemingly unaware that it has already been mentioned several times[30]. It also implies that counter-arguments that might have been brought up by another MEP are usually not further discussed during the debate and there is little to no room for follow-up exchange on relevant points mentioned[31]. Roald and Sangolt interestingly wrote that “[r]ather than being a place for the exchange of views, the MEPs’ speeches mostly involve publication of views, or heralding of pre-formed views which to a lesser degree matches a deliberative ideal”[32] which coincides with what we have been observing.

In our view, this situation has globally contributed to a diminished sense of "authenticity" in the deliberative nature of the plenary debates. This can be partially attributed to the fact that each session of the European Parliament addresses a wide range of topics, with the substantive deliberations primarily occurring elsewhere, particularly in committees or trilogue negotiations[33]. This reflection questions the true purpose of the plenary debates. With no genuine dialogue and decisions made elsewhere, could their role be more of a performance, aimed at satisfying the public's demand for transparency than genuine deliberative debates?