What role does humour play in modern politics? Drawing on a new book, Ofer Feldman explains that humour can be a powerful political tool, but its content, nature and impact depend heavily on a country’s culture.

Political humour has become increasingly prominent in recent decades, particularly since the late 1990s with the appearances of politicians on televised talk shows in a variety of countries, most notably in the US, and with the popularity of political satire programmes, including The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live.

More recently, social media platforms have emerged as channels for ridiculing, mocking and laughing at public figures, political institutions and issues via jokes, puns, metaphors, caricatures and pictures. This influences the prism through which voters see politics and policies, thereby moulding their political attitudes and behaviour.

Previous academic research has identified and detailed the manifold aspects of humour in politics, including its function and effect on the political attitudes and engagement of media users and voters. This research portrays humour as an alternative and important means of political communication.

Arguably, political legitimacy implies deference to the government, its institutions and representatives. This is the primary tenet underlying all types of political systems. Humour that is aimed at the power structure and public officials, through such venues as parody, comedy, satire and jokes, is created and circulated by members of the public (or journalists and political pundits) on the assumption that this might satisfy a need for disrespect of political authority.

It might also be a relief from the trivial stresses and frustrations that citizens, “the powerless”, feel toward political leaders, institutions or policies. In this sense, such humour can be seen as a weapon of political criticism and contempt, as a method of individual coping with disliked policies, politicians and circumstances, and as an instrument to get even with oppressors.

Likewise, for their part, politicians are well aware of the power of humour. They know that even a mediocre joke or a witty remark can affect their interaction with the electorate and the public. American presidents, as one example, starting from George Washington and Abraham Lincoln through to John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan (who was known as “The Great Communicator” and the “Master of the Joke”), and Barack Obama, used humour while campaigning and in office. When used wisely, humour allows such politicians to control the immediate social situation, creating temporary unity in the audience and enabling them to redefine to their advantage the situation for journalists and the wider public.

The components of political humour

Such humour draws upon two significant concepts. First, the common experiences and stereotypes around which identities and perceptions toward the self and the “other” are formed. Often such humour relies on unconscious fear, expectations and frustrations – rarely on cognition, reasoning, and logic.

As such, it satisfies needs which are more psychological and symbolic than political, more in the domain of amusement than in realising public goals. In this respect, it is a discourse of persuasion and opinion, attitude formation and change, almost always against the political elite, oppressors and the “other” (e.g. a particular ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation). Based on this premise, the rhetoric of political humour is ultimately political.

Second, political humour relies on the semantics and pragmatics of political language, contextual information, the culture, norms, values and beliefs of a given society or ethnic group, and the political culture of a given country. In this regard, humour about political issues and personnel doesn’t develop in a vacuum. It evolves as part of the interaction between individuals and their surroundings. It is influenced by specific circumstances, culture, socialisation processes, language, religion, history and social values and norms.

People from different cultural backgrounds, western and non-western societies, individualistic and collectivist cultures, perceive, interpret, use and are affected by humour in different ways. There are cultures and political cultures where humour plays an important role in social life, where humour in its diverse forms is accepted, and conversely other cultures where humour is not encouraged in everyday life, sometimes seen as a threat to social harmony.

The importance of culture

Consider, for example, Israel and Japan. Both are culturally homogeneous societies in which a majority of the population share a large number of cultural similarities (e.g. ethnicity, race, religion, language), and both have smaller minority groups that differ from the dominant culture. Yet, the Israeli and Japanese societies are mirror images in regard to the use and acceptability of political parody, satire and jokes.

In Israel, humour has its roots in Jewish humour, originating from the Jewish history of suffering rejection, misery and despair. The fact that Jews tended to laugh and joke (also about themselves) in difficult times is probably their most conspicuous connection with humour. Present-day Israeli humour, however, is distinct from the “old” Jewish humour, reflecting a shift from self-disparaging humour to aggressive humour, focusing on political and current affairs, including references to new immigrants, ethnicity, religion and the Holocaust.

Political humour was always present in Israel, even before its establishment. Jokes about founding fathers of the early Zionist movement, and later the founding fathers of the country, were an integral part of Israeli culture. The target for political jokes and satire always included political leaders such as prime ministers and ministers, military officers, high court judges and even presidents of the country were not excluded from the spear of ridicule and mockery.

On the other hand, in Japan one finds significantly fewer expressions of political humour. Jokes about leading politicians, prime ministers or government bureaucrats are rare. Jests about the emperor are unthinkable. Politically-oriented graffiti messages in public places such as walls around public institutions, or in public toilets, can scarcely be found. Political satire is extremely rare and ridiculing public officials in the media, even by comedians, is unwelcome and an object for national broadcaster censure.

Some would cynically explain the scarcity of satire by saying that it mainly thrives in an open and democratic environment, whereas the unusual nature of “Japanese-style democracy” discourages healthy critique. Others suggest that there is no need for satire in Japan because political reality – including the increasing incidents of administrative corruption and political scandals, lack of integrity and competence among politicians, and their relations with syndicated crime and religious organisations – already seems like a parody.

In either case, culture and political culture shape the content, nature and characteristics of political humour in countries and social groups, and the force of humour reverberates in culturally specific contexts. Studying political humour (as a distinct form of political discourse) will lead to a better understanding of political rhetoric, information processing, attitude formation and change, persuasion, political engagement, and the way people make sense of politics in contemporary society.

All of which is illustrated in the following: How many UK prime ministers does it take to change a light bulb? Who knows, they’re never in office long enough to be able to do so.

Ofer Feldman is the editor of Political Humor Worldwide: The Cultural Context of Political Comedy, Satire, and Parody (Springer, 2024)

Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Darwin Brandis / Shutterstock.com