In late March, on her first day as an elected representative in the German Parliament, left-wing politician Cansin Köktürk wore a garment that shocked some of those present.
Köktürk had wrapped artfully around her neck a black and white keffiyeh – the scarf commonly worn right throughout the Middle East that’s become synonymous with Palestinian culture. The 31-year-old parliamentarian then posed for a picture inside the Bundestag building and boldly posted it on social media.
There was uproar from the right wing. That scarf is a “trademark of anti-semites, Israel-haters, and Hamas terror supporters”, the habitually spiteful tabloid, Bild, ranted. Conservative politicians called for the offending cloth to be banned in the German Parliament. Such a violent bit of fabric “has no place in the Bundestag”, highly strung MPs cried.
The whole over-egged “scandal” brought back another debate, too, one New Zealanders have also grappled with after MPs performed a haka in protest last November: Who decides exactly what is acceptable behaviour in Parliament? And if it is deemed unacceptable, should it be forbidden?
In Hungary last month, after the country’s self-proclaimed “illiberal” leader Viktor Orbán and his party voted through legislation to ban public events by LGBTQ+ communities, angry opposition lawmakers set off coloured smoke bombs inside parliament.
Smoke bombs were also thrown around Serbia’s parliament last month, along with eggs, flares and a few punches. Opposition MPs were demonstrating solidarity with student protesters, who’d been demanding justice and an end to corruption after a railway station collapsed in late 2024, killing 15.
And in Italy last June, about 20 MPs began brawling in parliament after left-wing politician Leonardo Donno unfurled the Italian flag in the face of a right-wing politician, a statement about the right’s support for more regional autonomy. Right-wing MPs then attacked Donno, who eventually had to be carted off in a wheelchair.
In France, local politicians have been known to burst into disruptive song. In 2023, MPs opposed to controversial pension reforms sang a popular protest chant over proceedings and then a few weeks later, the national anthem.
With all the messing about, you’d think this sort of behaviour might put people off politics. And it is true “many citizens believe that politics has an ‘incivility problem’,” Danish political scientists confirmed in an August 2024 paper in the American Journal of Political Science. In many ways, the citizens aren’t wrong, they said. Television and social media mean we’re all much more likely to see our elected representatives behaving badly.
There are concerns such “incivility” could have an impact on how democracy functions and voters behave. But interestingly, the researchers found the negative effects were minimal. In general, ordinary people don’t like it, but it doesn’t stop them voting, nor does it “depress political trust, satisfaction with democracy, vote intentions or policy compliance”.
Political scientists should instead more closely examine location, context and culture, the researchers argued.
So, foolish grandstanding or heroic resistance? It depends. Because mostly it seems how you feel about your politicians doing a haka, bursting into song, letting off rainbow-coloured smoke bombs depends on your point of view about the issue at hand.
But, aside from actual violence, does any of that need to be banned because it contravenes convention and polite political debate? Again, it probably depends on how much of a stickler you are for convention. But as historians will tell the sticklers, there’s a long list of items that were once, but are no longer, common in Europe’s parliaments – horsehair wigs, ties, suits of armour and swords among them.
Cathrin Schaer is a freelance journalist living in Berlin.
