Abstract

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article was to examine the issue of human dignity and the ways in which it is violated, in the light of the resolutions of the Sejm’s Parliamentary Ethics Committee during the 10th term.

RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The problem addressed in this article centres on the question of which communicative behaviours—both verbal and non-verbal— employed by members of the Sejm during the 10th term may be regarded as a violation of a person’s dignity. The main method employed in the research is a content analysis of 49 resolutions of the Sejm’s Parliamentary Ethics Committee of the 10th term, adopted between 10 January 2024 and 1 July 2026.

ARGUMENTATION: In the first part of the text, the concept of dignity was defined with reference to various sources (dictionaries, encyclopaedias, legal acts) and academic works, as well as the concept of communicative behaviour. Subsequently, the Principles of Parliamentary Ethics and the remit of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee were outlined. An analysis was then carried out of the resolutions of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee, with particular attention paid to those instances of MPs’ communicative behaviour that were deemed to violate a person’s dignity.

RESULTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS: The article demonstrates that members of the Sejm of the 10th term engage in communicative behaviours in various public spheres that are regarded as infringing upon a person’s dignity. These behaviors include the use of linguistic devices such as profanity, insults, and comparisons, as well as making threats or spreading unverified opinions. Nonverbal means are also used (props, visual materials, kinesic, proxemic, and paraverbal behaviors).

CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS: In the Polish Sejm, the personal dignity of others is being violated through various forms of communication. The Parliamentary Ethics Committee identifies inappropriate behaviour, and such behaviour is penalised; however, the nature of these penalties (a warning, a reprimand, a censure) and their number (49 since the start of the 10th parliamentary term) are not commensurate with the scale of the problem. Other forms of communication that lead to violations of another person’s dignity, but which have not been the subject of the Committee’s consideration, are also worth further analysis. It is also worth drawing attention to other axiological categories in the context of MPs’ communicative behaviour.