On June 14, 2025, the lives of Melissa Hortman who was a House speaker in Minnesota and her husband Mark were taken in what authorities believe to be a politically motivated act of violence. The same day Senator John Hoffman and his wife were also shot and injured. 

This act of violence raised concerns about political violence in the United States. In democratic politics, violence not only matters when it changes who holds power but also when it forces institutions to acknowledge loss.

After this moment, members of the congress held a speech to raise awareness around this type of violence. This was not the only time that the Congress did a minute of silence. However, they matter more than we think politically and humanly speaking. My argument is that minutes of silence in Congress are not only a way to express mourning, but are rituals that show how fragile political order can become when violence shapes public life and fear. 

Democracy is often defined through elections, institutions and law. But it is also important to emphasize norms and unwritten rules and how some political actors behave. These include, reflecting violence in general, respecting others and accepting that some conflicts should be resolved in these institutions and not by force. The killing of public figures or innocent individuals pushed democratic institutions to answer in a symbolic way rather than a political one.  

In the case of the Hortman’s, members of Congress used the floor not to pass legislation immediately, but to acknowledge loss and condemn violence. This reflects an important feature of modern democracies institutions. As they rely on unity, even though this does not mean that these lawmakers agree politically. 

However, these symbolic moments can also show a separation of the parties when it comes to resolutions about violence. Their goal could differ when it comes to approving policies that could influence the rate of violence. We can see types of division when it comes to solutions and what causes them. There have been countless debates around gun rights in the United States. While some argue that there should be stricter laws against it, others argue that it could threaten individual rights. 

But how can we prevent future violence if these moments remain performative? These gestures don’t replace solutions related to public safety. However, dismissing them entirely would also remove their democratic function. They matter because they show shared values when it comes to human life even though at the end everyone can have a different opinion on certain matters like I stated earlier. 

This event can be understood through democratic erosion. It does not always mean that elections and institutions lose their power. But that norms and trust are becoming increasingly weakened. Shared expectations about political behaviour are also at their highest. 

Polarization is also a key factor in this type of environment. Where violence is more likely to happen.In highly polarized systems ideologies diverge from one another, creating a hostile environment where an opponent could be seen as dangerous. 

Institutional resilience is also an important concept. That shows how democracies can experience instability and shocks but still remain stable. The house response to his violent actions shows that American institutions are still trying to enforce norms.  However, repeated reliance on symbolic responses can also signal that deeper political divisions remain unresolved.

Earlier in May, I was present in the house of the representative chamber during a voting session where different bills were passed. At the end of this session the Democratic Party held a minute of silence followed by a speech. 

The democratic party requisitioned this moment in order to honor a life that was taken by an act of violence because of religious choices. What struck out the most was the different level of importance that this moment had on the different parties. Showing that political division always remains. 

What stood out to me was not only the silence itself, but also the contrast between routine legislative work and sudden emotional interruption. The idea of democratic norms became more concrete. These are not only theories discussed in political science but are practiced through recognition. 

What is important to keep in mind in cases like this, is that through violent acts, symbolism can matter. Democracy is not always defined by legislation but also shaped by how as a society those who have power use it to act when violence enters the lives of citizens. Speeches but also moments of silence are important to show to the public that everyone cares and that violence has no right place. 

However, there are still some concerns about the efficiency of these moments that are sometimes seen as only performative. As discussed earlier, this does not mean that everyone aligns politically when it comes to finding solutions. The gap between symbolism and policy is where there is still tension that needs to be solved.