Humour in politics

As Imran Khan and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari delivered speech after speech on the campaign trail, they have been trying out the use of humour to spice up their appearances. Politics is serious business but sometimes humour in politics is quintessential. In the midst of a not so contentious electoral season, it is always refreshing to see politicians refrain from negativity and poking fun at themselves and their opponents. It can be a helpful distraction from negative attacks to help a campaign pivot from a negative to a more positive message or the reverse. This is not merely an unintentional occurrence but rather a method to convey deeper messages relating to today’s political matters.
Politics have a large impact on the way in which our society functions and both leaders have used political elements to relate to voters and their constituencies through the context of humour. Much of the political publicity gained from their use of humour is not created solely for laughs and entertainment but the comments are meant to communicate a hidden and deeper meaning. This has allowed both Imran Khan and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to indirectly get their points across about political affairs and various issues that are left for the voters to unfold.
Sigmund Freud’s definition of humour and jokes allows the forming of a basic framework for why politicians may seem humorous. Jokes on political subjects are generally of a tendentious nature. This means that they serve an aim or purpose for the teller of the joke. Cynical jokes are jokes directed at an institution. Leaders joke about the opposition’s politician because using humour to mock opposition politics allows them to evade restrictions that society would normally place on them. In a slightly different twist, laughter is a way of expressing power over another. It is an egotistical mechanism that fits perfectly in line with the theory that man always acts out of self-love. In this way, politicians use humour to sway power over political figures that would normally have a large advantage over them. They feel a fleeting superiority over those who the public laughs at with them.
Some party supporters, however, claim that humour intends to humiliate. It works as a social discourse. They believe this humiliation — snubbing — is actually not preceded by argument or reasoning but rather by intuition. In this way, when a politician steps out of line, he collectively humiliates the leader and the party worker both by trying to bring humour to his speeches. Additionally, laughter is purely cerebral. Its appeal is to intelligence, pure and simple. In order to laugh at a situation, one must be emotionally detached. This is how voters can find humour in situations that involve conflict where laughter might, at first, seem inappropriate. Thus, it is a relatively open question: what are the effects of humorous political messages on voting behaviour? Does a funny word exchange make it more likely for the party to get more votes? And does it lead voters to evaluate other attributes of the opposition candidate in a less positive manner?
Overall, the use of satire in politics is a useful and popular method in today’s society. Party leaders often involve satire to help them engage with their audience, make them seem more charismatic or score hits against their opponents. Election campaigns appear to bring the humourist out in them and it gives them somewhat latitude to sit and pass judgement. Politicians are also in the business of communication and many are good at using the one liner approach but it can also backfire. An ulterior motive is fatal in politics: it presents itself as insincerity. Was that why Imran Khan’s wit sharply penetrated Bilawal during their speech contests? Imran Khan needled Bilawal by saying, “He is a child and I do not want to answer him.” He also said that Bilawal has no knowledge of the difficulties faced by Pakistan and cannot even speak Urdu properly. Bilawal had a prepared answer: “Imran uncle, politics is not bound by age.” On another instance, he said that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) chief, Imran Khan, should learn politics from the Bhutto family.
It has become the culture today that politicians focus endlessly on ridicule, exposing and criticising their opponents in their political speeches. Everyone knows politicians make themselves an easy target through poor judgements, bad grammar and poor political choices. Not only are they themselves humiliated but also the families of politicians are sometimes affected. One reason why the media picks them up as the object of our entertainment may be that behind all of their political flakiness, they really are people. It seems sometimes, through all of the campaigning, that it is hard to imagine them as human. This makes it easy to forget that they make mistakes just like the rest of us. It is a way for society to be satisfied that the politicians are, more often than not, terrible role models and such talk points out all of the absurdities that are presented to people through their satire in politics.
Do we have humour in politics or actually the politics of humour? In any case, one of the most troubling aspects of the current political scene is the almost absent appreciation of good humour. Our political views and attitudes have become so anally retentive that we are in danger of losing our normally friendly approach towards political parties and elections. We are so obsessed with proving that we are right and they are wrong that we frequently miss the point that we are all in this together. I cannot recall how many people voted for the PTI and PPP but both Imran and Bilawal did add a few lighter moments to an otherwise drab and boring campaign. Such levity, no pun intended, is needed in today’s hate-filled world of politics.

The writer is a professor of Psychiatry and consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in the UK. He can be contacted at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com