A Decline in the Quality of Debate? The Evolution of Cognitive Complexity in Swiss Parliamentary Debates on Immigration (1968–2014)

Abstract

This article explores the evolution of debate quality in the Swiss parliament. Focusing on immigration debates, we employ a psychological construct—cognitive complexity (CC)—which captures both epistemic and accommodative dimensions of political argumentation. We find a decrease in CC in parliamentary immigration debates over time, but this decrease was driven by the rise of the SVP (Swiss People's Party). However, there was almost no “spillover” of this new communication style to other parties. Moreover, we also find a constant difference between the Ständerat and the Nationalrat, with the former scoring higher on CC and thus asserting its role as a “chambre de réflexion” in immigration debates. Our diachronic focus on the quality of political debate takes a novel perspective on the dynamics of consensus democracy as well as on elite political culture. While our results indicate that the rise of the SVP has transformed the traditional consensual and deliberative pattern of Swiss policy‐making style into one which is geared towards less accommodation and a higher simplicity of political talk, there is still remarkable resilience against this new style of political interaction.

Deliberation and Complexity of Thinking. Using the Integrative Complexity Scale to Assess the Deliberative Quality of Minipublics

“…In contrast to Wyss et al. (), who study the deliberative quality of Swiss parliamentary debates using the automated Linguistic Inquiry & Word Count (LIWC, developed by Francis and Pennebaker ), I have used the manual approach for this study.…”

“…Some scholars have already recognised the conceptual correspondence between deliberative conversational norms (involving reasoning and listening dimensions) and complexity of thinking in the way both theories ’attempt to capture the epistemic weight and quality of human thought and communication’ (Wyss et al. : 641; see also Brundidge et al. ).…”

“…When deliberative citizens constructively deal with the uncertain, tentative and contingent nature of political communication, without reverting to dogmatic, closed‐minded and prejudicial thinking (reasoning), while continuously listening and being responsive to others (listening), they demonstrate complexity of thinking (Wyss et al. ). Thus, complexity of thinking is here claimed to be an underlying component in both reasoning and listening performances in deliberation.…”

“…; Wyss et al. ) and thereby inferences can be made about the deliberative quality of political discussions.…”

“…; Wyss et al. ). Even though deliberative theory and complexity of thinking are very different types of theories – the first being a normative ideal and the latter a psychological construct – both theories draw attention to individuals’ capacities to cope with ambiguous and uncertain information, to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing perspectives, to recognise nuances and to forge conceptual links among various perspectives (e.g.…”