| Abstract [eng] |
This master’s thesis analyses affective polarization in the speeches of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania between 2008 and 2024. The relevance of the topic is based on the fact that parliamentary speech is an important form of political communication. Parliamentary speeches are part of the legislative process and also serve as a public space where politicians express their positions, criticize opponents, explain their decisions and communicate with voters. Negative speech in parliament is not necessarily problematic, as criticism and disagreement are normal parts of politics. However, it is important to distinguish general negativity from affective polarization. The aim of the thesis is to determine whether negative speech in the transcripts of the Lithuanian Seimas takes the form of affective polarization, or whether it can be better explained by other sources of parliamentary negativity. The study tests four main hypotheses. First, it asks whether members of the Seimas speak more negatively about opposing political groups than about their own group. Second, it examines whether opposition members speak more negatively than members of the governing majority. Third, it analyses whether more active members of the Seimas tend to use a more negative tone. Fourth, it examines whether negativity between individual MPs is reciprocal. The research is based on a quantitative analysis of official Seimas transcripts from 2008 to 2024. In total, 1,764 transcripts were collected, and mentions of members of the Seimas were identified in them. These mentions were linked to the factional affiliation of both the speaker and the mentioned person, as well as to their governing majority or opposition status at a specific time. To evaluate the tone of the mentions, a manually annotated training set of 15,000 mentions was created, and an automated classification model was developed to distinguish procedural mentions from non-procedural ones and to assign a sentiment score to non-procedural mentions. The results showed that, at the level of the whole 2008–2024 period, the main assumption of affective polarization was not confirmed. The results also showed that the distinction between the governing majority and the opposition is an important factor in explaining parliamentary negativity. In all analysed parliamentary terms, opposition members spoke more negatively about other members of the Seimas than members of the governing majority. The analysis of parliamentary activity also showed that more active members of the Seimas tended to speak in a more negative tone. The main conclusion of the thesis is that negative speech in the Lithuanian Seimas between 2008 and 2024 should not be understood as affective polarization. Instead, it is better explained as a more complex form of parliamentary negativity shaped by several factors: the role of the opposition, individual speaking activity and reciprocal negativity between particular MPs. |
