Fistfights have long been associated with unruly behaviour in public spaces and are widely regarded as a sign of vulgarity. The same applies to verbal abuse and profane language. But what happens when such behaviour is displayed by political elites and even erupts under the domes of national parliaments?
The question has become more pressing than ever, opening a Pandora’s Box of questions about the political and psychological forces driving this phenomenon. Increasingly, analysts are asking why the kind of language that might cost an ordinary employee a job can instead enhance a politician’s image, making them appear stronger, more authentic, or more popular.
Recent events illustrate the trend. On 26 June, a fistfight broke out in the Georgian parliament between members of the ruling Georgian Dream Party and the opposition For Georgia Party during the final plenary session of the spring term, as Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze presented his annual report.
Earlier, on 4 March last year, Serbian opposition MPs disrupted a parliamentary session by lighting flares and throwing smoke bombs. In Armenia, a physical confrontation erupted on the parliament’s floor in July 2025.
These incidents reflect a broader pattern: the growing prevalence of bad language, physical confrontations, and personal insults in both domestic politics and international relations. The trend has become particularly prominent in recent years.
More strikingly, established diplomatic norms are increasingly giving way to inflammatory rhetoric. Heads of state, parliamentarians, political elites, and party representatives have become more willing to employ profanities, personal insults, and derogatory language against political opponents, whether foreign rivals or, at times, even allies.
Some observers describe this phenomenon as “bad politics” and a style of political behaviour characterised by inflammatory rhetoric, personal attacks, and, at times, physical violence. While such tactics have long been directed at domestic opponents, they are now increasingly being employed by state leaders against foreign rivals.
Political insults remain the most common and least dangerous expression of this trend, often accompanied by defamation, public quarrels, and slander. Such behaviour is frequently intended to project strength, demonstrate resolve, and capture public attention, making it attractive to certain segments of the electorate.
The growing normalisation of abusive political discourse has prompted increasing concern among scholars and policymakers alike. Critics argue that the routine use of insults and profanity in political life erodes public trust in political institutions, weakens confidence in democratic processes, and undermines the norms of civility and mutual respect on which effective governance ultimately depends.
REASONS: “Politicians (well, lots of them, but not all) have a single motivation. They want to win the next election,” said one contributor, Paul M, on Quora.com. Paul’s comment was a reply to a public debate on “why are some politicians gratuitously rude to others.”
A growing body of literature links the spread of bad language in politics to the rise of populist leaders in a number of countries, including the US and parts of Europe, over the past decade. These leaders have cultivated broad electoral support by adopting a style of communication that departs from the conventions of traditional political discourse.
The phenomenon is perhaps best illustrated by US President Donald Trump, whose rhetoric relies on simple, emotionally charged language, familiar expressions, and the frequent use of derogative labels for political opponents.
Rather than employing nuanced policy arguments, Trump often prefers direct and emotive language that appeals to instinct and sentiment. This communication style has enabled him to connect with large sections of the electorate, shape public opinion, and amplify his messages through social media, political rallies, and live television.
Many analysts argue that this approach has contributed to the normalisation of increasingly confrontational and insulting political discourse, both within the US and beyond.
A recent article published on Variety.com referred to this argument in a piece titled “Is Donald Trump’s Lewd-And-Rude Approach Spreading Across the US?”
“The media now refers to Donald Trump, not just as a person, but a brand,” journalist Peter Bart wrote. “As such, the Trump brand has now infected politics as well as pop culture.”
Another article published by the Los Angeles Times summed it up in its headline that “America has Gotten Ruder. Starting at the Very Top.”
“A poll released this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Centre in the US found that five years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic many of those surveyed believe public behaviour has changed for the worse,” wrote Mark Z. Barabak in the Los Angeles Times.
“That’s what happens when you have a president with no filter, no conscience, and a flamethrower where his mouth should be.”
Nothing perhaps proves Barabak’s viewpoint more than a recent incident that was surprisingly justified and normalised by the White House. During a visit to a Ford manufacturing plant in Detroit in January, Trump was heckled by a worker who shouted, “protector of child rapists”, an apparent reference to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Footage of the incident appears to show Trump responding to the heckler with an offensive middle-finger gesture. When asked about the incident, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president “believed his response had been appropriate”.
“A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the president gave an appropriate and unambiguous response,” she said.
It is no surprise, then, that this increasingly confrontational tone is no longer confined to political leaders. As Pew polls have indicated, the rudeness bug has been spreading like a virus across the US.
Anti-Trump demonstrations, including protests against his domestic and foreign policies held under the slogan “No Kings”, have also featured inflammatory slogans and insulting placards directed at the president. The rhetoric employed by both supporters and opponents illustrates how coarse and personalised language has become an increasingly prominent feature of political discourse in the US.
Trump’s political rhetoric has been marked by the frequent use of disparaging nicknames and personal attacks against his opponents. During successive election campaigns, he referred to his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as “Crooked Hillary” and to former president Joe Biden as “Sleepy Joe”, using such labels to question their integrity, competence, and fitness for office.
He also directed personal attacks at former vice president Kamala Harris, as well as prosecutors involved in legal cases against him, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whom he described in highly derogatory terms.
This confrontational style has extended beyond political rivals to include repeated attacks on judges, prosecutors, and journalists. Trump has frequently questioned the mental and physical capacities of his opponents, while dismissing reporters who ask challenging questions as “idiots” or providers of “fake news”.
Many US media organisations and political commentators have argued that such language falls well below the standards traditionally associated with the office of the US presidency and has contributed to the normalisation of increasingly abrasive political discourse.
Trump has also been similarly criticised for using inflammatory language when discussing immigration. During his 2015 presidential campaign, he described some Mexican migrants as “criminals” and “rapists”, while in later speeches he referred to certain undocumented migrants as “animals”.
In a 2018 White House meeting on immigration, he reportedly used a derogatory term to describe Haiti and several African countries, remarks that drew widespread domestic and international condemnation.
Research has also pointed to a broader deterioration in the tone of political discourse in the US more generally. Several studies have documented an increase in the use of coarse and insulting language in public speeches between 2016 and 2024, while other analyses suggest that incivility has become more common in congressional debate.
Public opinion surveys likewise indicate that many Americans believe political discourse has become markedly more negative over the past decade, reflecting growing concern about the erosion of civility in public life.
ADVERSARIES: A growing number of analysts insist that Trump’s confrontational rhetoric towards Iran’s leaders should not be dismissed as spontaneous outbursts or simple tantrums.
Instead, some analysts view it as part of a broader strategy aimed at breaking with the conventions of traditional diplomacy. This approach, often described as “deterrence through uncertainty” or coercive diplomacy, seeks to keep adversaries uncertain about Washington’s intentions and the president’s likely response to unfolding events.
According to this interpretation, the strategic value of inflammatory rhetoric lies in its unpredictability. By making his reactions appear difficult to anticipate, Trump seeks to compel opponents to reassess their calculations and act more cautiously. His public statements about Iran have frequently combined threats with provocative language, reinforcing an image of unpredictability.
For example, Trump referred to his Iranian adversaries as “crazy scoundrels” in a post on Truth Social on 6 April, urging them to “open the Strait of Hormuz, you crazy people, or you will live in hell.”
Whether deliberate or instinctive, this style of communication has become a defining feature of his approach to international crises.
Trump used a series of derogatory terms to describe Iranian leaders during remarks on 8 July on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, accusing Tehran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, violating agreements, and threatening maritime navigation. He called Iranian leaders “scum”, “sick people”, “cuckoo/madmen”, and “evil, vicious, and deceitful”.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded by saying that addressing the Iranian people “in insulting language” did not diminish their stature, arguing that Iranians have long been recognised for their “civilisation, culture, and adherence to moral values”.
Former Iranian foreign minister Mohamed Javad Zarif also criticised Trump’s remarks in a post on X, saying that “profane words are not evidence of victory but of the desperation of its owner.” He added that Iran would not respond to insults with insults but would continue to defend its interests “without fear and with great courage”.
According to this view, Trump’s use of aggressive and confrontational language is intended to project the image of a “relentless fighter” and a leader willing to challenge conventions in defence of his supporters. This approach has been evident in his dealings with adversaries in different regions, including Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.
His rhetoric often moves between personal mockery, brinkmanship, bluffing, and maximum-pressure tactics, aiming to project overwhelming and unpredictable power in order to push opponents towards negotiations.
At times, however, his statements have escalated into explicit threats of violence, destruction, or economic collapse, including warnings of Iran’s complete destruction and earlier threats of devastating consequences for North Korea.
Political insults are not always directed at adversaries, however. They may also be used to pressure allies by portraying them as weak, unreliable, or unwilling to shoulder their share of collective responsibilities.
This tactic seeks to increase leverage within strategic alliances by publicly questioning the commitment or credibility of partner states.
Relations between the US under Trump and its NATO allies illustrate this dynamic. Throughout his presidency, Trump has repeatedly criticised European members of the alliance for what he has described as inadequate defence spending and an excessive reliance on US military protection.
On 20 March, Trump lashed out at NATO leaders, calling them “cowards” after their refusal to engage militarily in the ongoing war against Iran and stressing that Washington would not forget this position. In the same post, he added that “without the United States, NATO is just a hollow power”.
In the same vein, Trump downplayed the sacrifices of NATO allies (such as British and European forces in Afghanistan), saying they “stayed a little bit behind, away from the front lines”. He further claimed that America “never needed them”.
Calling allies “payment evaders” and “delinquents” has become one of the most frequent terms in Trump’s lexicon against other NATO countries. He has further accused NATO of “defrauding” the US taxpayer by relying entirely on Washington’s military budget without committing to a supposed two per cent of their GDP for defence spending.
In an interview with the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph on 31 March, Trump further described NATO as a “paper tiger”. Such rhetoric reflects a broader negotiating strategy that relies on public pressure and confrontational language to influence allied behaviour.
ARAB WORLD: The declining willingness of political elites to tolerate opposing views has also become an increasingly visible feature of politics across many Arab countries.
Parliamentary debates are frequently giving way to personal insults, accusations, and, at times, physical confrontations in many Arab countries, reflecting a broader erosion of political dialogue and democratic norms.
In Lebanon, this trend was highlighted by a heated exchange between independent MP Paula Yacoubian and Free Patriotic Movement MP Salim Aoun during parliamentary deliberations over a proposed constitutional amendment to enable army commander, and now president, Joseph Aoun to be elected president.
The confrontation underscored the deep political divisions surrounding the presidential election and the increasingly confrontational tone of parliamentary discourse.
A similar scene unfolded in Iraq, where a parliamentary session ended in a fistfight during the vote on the formation of Prime Minister Ali Al-Zaidi’s government on 14 May. The violence erupted amid disputes over the suitability of several ministerial nominees, illustrating how political disagreements are increasingly spilling over into physical altercations rather than being resolved through institutional debate.
Elsewhere, widening political divisions between ruling parties and opposition forces have increasingly fuelled confrontations inside parliamentary chambers. In Georgia, MPs from the Georgian Dream Party and the For Georgia Party exchanged blows on 26 June during the closing plenary session of the spring term after an opposition lawmaker criticised Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s handling of relations with Azerbaijan.
The chaos forced state television to suspend its live broadcast, while security personnel intervened and emergency medical teams treated injured MPs.
Similar scenes have unfolded in the Turkish parliament, where tensions between the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) have repeatedly escalated into verbal abuse and physical clashes. During one swearing-in session, opposition MPs attempted to disrupt the proceedings, arguing that the appointments undermined the rule of law, before the dispute descended into violence.
Pakistan’s National Assembly also witnessed heated verbal exchanges and an exchange of insults in 2026 between members of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and lawmakers from the opposition-aligned Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) over accusations of treason.
Tensions escalated after PTI MP Mohamed Iqbal Khan alleged that some politicians were acting on behalf of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). The incident prompted Speaker of the National Assembly Sardar Ayaz Sadiq to suspend the lawmaker for the remainder of the session debates on grounds of misconduct. The speaker accused Khan of violating the dignity of parliament and insulting National Assembly staff.
Political tensions also flared in Mexico City’s Congress between the left-wing ruling Morena Party and the right-wing opposition National Action Party (PAN) amid a heated dispute over transparency and government oversight reforms.
The controversy centred on the dissolution of the city’s Transparency Institute and the transfer of its responsibilities to a government agency on 16 December. The verbal exchanges quickly escalated into a physical confrontation involving at least five female lawmakers from both sides.
Morena legislators attempted to forcibly remove their PAN counterparts after the latter refused to leave the podium, with the MPs seen pulling each other’s hair and exchanging blows. Following the clash, PAN lawmakers walked out of the chamber, allowing the ruling majority to resume the session and continue debating the legislation in the opposition’s absence.
Conspiracy theories have increasingly shaped the way some parliamentary elites interpret regional developments, often fuelling cross-border political disputes. In the final week of May, lawmakers from Jordan’s House of Representatives and Iraq’s Council of Representatives traded insults and accusations on social media after Iraqi MP Alaa Al-Haidari called for suspending Iraqi oil exports to Jordan, accusing Amman of “conspiring against Iraq and Iran”.
Jordanian MP Raed Al-Dhahrawi responded on Facebook with a strongly worded rebuke, insisting that Jordan dealt only with “honourable” members of the Iraqi parliament and that the Kingdom paid the full price for Iraqi oil.
Al-Haidari later reiterated his demand to halt oil exports, accusing Jordan of conspiring against Iraq. The exchange prompted Jordan’s Ministry of Energy to issue a public statement clarifying that Jordan purchases Iraqi oil at agreed prices and does not receive it free of charge.
In sum, political incivility has become a global phenomenon, evident in countries including the US, Mexico, Georgia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. Manifesting itself in insults, abusive rhetoric, offensive gestures, and even physical confrontations, the trend reflects the erosion of democratic norms and the growing preference among some ruling and opposition elites for intimidation over dialogue.
Whether in parliament, the media, or on social media, such behaviour is increasingly being used to discredit opponents and project political power.
“In many workplaces, these sorts of comments and actions could cost people their jobs,” concluded Ilana E. Strauss in an article titled “The Point of Cruelty” published in the Washington-based magazine The Atlantic.
“But in politics, rude behaviour is often described as a sign that a politician is ‘tough,’ ‘no-nonsense,’ or ‘effective’”.
The writer is head of the Arab and Regional Studies Unit at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 6 August, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: