Political Communications & declining electoral participation

CHAPTER ONE

Political Communications and the decline in electoral participation

Is technology an ally of democracy? Or is it its enemy? Do new ways to share information and for citizens to communicate with each other, create a more informed and engaged public? It is tempting to answer yes and for centuries going back to the invention of the flatbed printing press , to the rise of newspapers in the 19th century, it did indeed appear that new ways to spread ideas led to a more informed public and contributed to the creation of freer and more democratic societies. Political communication was, perhaps, something positive.

The twentieth century witnessed dramatic changes in technology which had a revolutionary impact on how politicians communicated with the public. The spread of radio and cinema in the 1920s and 30s, for the first time, allowed party leaders to address entire nations. The need for arduous touring and addressing countless meetings began to ebb away as campaigns became national and more centralised. Political parties saw this as a positive development which would allow political information to reach into every home and therefore contribute to a stronger democracy.

Serious doubts about the beneficial impact of radio and cinema for political communication soon began to surface as the apparent power of these mediums was used, particularly by Josef Goebbels in Nazi Germany, for propaganda. Today many regard the technological developments of the early 20th century as the birth of problems with voter engagement. As national campaigning increasingly dominated over local activities and party leaders began to retreat from the public into broadcasting studios distance began to grow between electors and elected.

The arrival of television and its spread throughout the 1950s and 1960s created yet another new medium which was initially heralded for its potential to create a better informed public and strengthen democracy. Particularly in Europe, where a strong culture of public service broadcasting (PSB) developed, national TV stations were committed to educational, political and cultural programming, as well as to entertaining the audience.

Although European national TV stations did uphold their PSB mission, it is argued that TV also had a negative impact on political communications and democracy. Television led to the rise of image. Audiences increasingly formed their opinions based not on what was being said but on how those saying it looked and the visual context in which they were saying it.

Famously a TV debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in the run up to the 1960 US Presidential election was judged to have been won by Nixon among those who heard the debate on radio. Due to his unshaven look and sweaty forehead, however, TV viewers judged Nixon to be the loser of the debate.

The art of TV campaigning, which focused on creating images and moods, rather than tackling serious policy issues was perhaps perfected in the 1980s during the Reagan presidency. In Europe, politicians also began to learn the importance of appearance and visual presentation with pioneers such as Gordon Reece and Tim Bell working on Margaret Thatcher’s image. For those who see the new technologies that have developed over the 20th century as having a negative impact on democracy the growth of TV made politicians focus their attention on how they looked and on using brief ‘sound bites’ which would be short on policy detail but ideal for inclusion in the evening news bulletin.

During the 1980s another process began which led to yet another transformation of the media landscape. Privatisation and deregulation swept across Europe and national TV stations which had enjoyed a near monopoly had to adjust in the face of a wave of new competition. The increasing pressure of competition, it is suggested, led to increased emphasis on mass appeal programming and to a reduction in investment in political, educational and cultural programming. Politicians apparently found themselves increasingly pushed out and having to use ever more creative or devious techniques to get themselves heard.

Increasing commercial pressures affected not only TV but all media as globalisation and competition drove radio and newspapers into mergers. This has lead to the creation of a relatively small number of huge, and extremely influential, profit driven media empires such as News Corporation and Time Warner. Within the journalistic community many argue that coverage of politics has suffered greatly in this process. Coverage became increasingly devoted to the more entertaining aspects of scandal and corruption as well as adversarial activities such as Prime Ministers Questions in the UK, while ignoring much of the day to day work in which politicians are involved.

TV and media competition, including the creation of 24 hour rolling news stations have made communication one of the central concerns of any political party. News management or ‘spin’ helps politicians to stay in the news and, as much as possible, in control of their messages. The result, it has been argued, is even more centralised control over political discussion within parties and between parties and the public.

The quality of debate declined and the focus on entertainment and image increased. The need for politicians to maintain their presence in this commercialised and competitive environment also led to the increasing use of opinion polls and focus groups to test and develop policy. This, possibly, has led to politicians becoming followers of public desires rather than leaders.

The need to fill vast amounts of air time has also led to a much greater reliance on input from experts or commentators on whatever is the issue of the day. Opinion and conjecture, in the absence of hard facts, has become an integral part of the news. This has created a situation where what is fact and what is opinion has become increasingly blurred. It has become increasingly difficult for the audience to judge who is right or wrong, who is telling the truth or lying.

Consequently, contend those who believe in the link between developments in the media landscape and voter disengagement, politicians were increasingly made to look corrupt and inefficient by media competing for ratings and advertising revenue. At the same time politicians themselves said less and less about real issues in order to try and control their own image and message in the media. Over the years, the public has become ever more disillusioned with the political process and is increasingly showing that disillusionment by not turning out to vote.

Added to this, it has also been argued that the need to use more sophisticated campaigning tools, including professional public relations (PR) and advertising agencies, has made political parties much more dependent on business interests or wealthy individuals. The resources needed to maintain a political media campaign could, it might be argued, lie at the heart of the ‘cash-for-honours’ scandal which beset Tony Blair’s government during its final months.

Specific issues relating to how the Labour Party in the UK developed its media strategies in the mid-1990s and then took those strategies into Government have also been the subject of endless argument. The powers given to Alastair Campbell as Director of Communications and to Jonathan Powell as Chief of Staff at 10 Downing Street to control the flow and timing of information released to the press, led to accusations that the media management system developed by Labour threatened the impartiality of the civil service and the relevance of Parliament.

Events surrounding the terrorist attacks on the United States of America on 11 September 2001, and the intelligence information published in the build up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 added much fire to these arguments. Although it is not within the scope of this research to discuss the merits of this debate, it is necessary to highlight the fact that several authors believe that the specific approach adopted by the Labour Party towards news management has directly contributed to growing disaffection with politicians in the UK. Sympathisers of the Government, meanwhile argue that it was forced to adopt this strategy because of the media’s relentless negative view of Labour pre-1994 and the ongoing decline in journalistic standards, caused primarily by the forces of privatisation, deregulation and globalisation.

Although powerful, evidence to support the argument that developments in media and in the relationship between media and politicians has actually contributed to greater voter disengagement, is inconclusive. It does seem that repeated exposure to negative messages about politics has an effect on the public’s attitude to politicians. Other research, however, carried out among those who regularly watch news on TV seems to indicate that the opposite may be true. Those who watch TV news may in fact become better informed and more engaged citizens. The issue of audience fragmentation still raises very serious issues. In theory it creates the possibility that those who are interested in politics search out the information they need and become better informed. Those who are not interested can now avoid politics completely.

Whereas up to the late 1980s anyone watching TV would at some point be faced with news or cultural programming, today that person can simply opt out. Perhaps levels of interest and trust in politics have not really changed, they have just been reinforced by media and audience fragmentation. A growing divide between those who are engaged with politics, and those who are not, and the impact this could potentially have on established democracies, is a cause for concern.

That people can completely avoid news about politics and current affairs seems hard to believe in view of the opportunities provided by radio news updates and the increasing number of free newspapers being distributed. If as has been argued in some quarters, exposure to news actually makes citizens more engaged rather than less, then perhaps our democracy is in a better shape than may at first appear.

Beyond the issues surrounding political communications and the media it is also important to bear in mind the fact that there are many other issues which may be contributing to low voter turn out in Western democracies. These include practical issues such as the procedures relating to registering to vote. These are frequently cited particularly in the United States and in those areas of the UK, like Hackney, where there is a high turnover of population. The fact that in the UK age is the most important factor in determining whether a person votes or not can be attributed to the greater mobility of young people rather than particular disengagement with political issues or politics in general.

There are also deeper structural issues including perhaps greater awareness that an individual’s single vote will probably not affect the overall outcome, and of the relative power of the legislature that is being voted for. Research carried out among MPs in East London, and discussed in the following chapter, highlights that even without the Labour government’s news management strategies, the actual ability of MPs to do anything effective to address their constituents concerns is severely limited.

Related to this is the possibility that the public is now more aware of other ways in which the decision process can be affected particularly through pressure groups. The huge rise in members of particular pressure groups over recent years can be used as evidence that people have not become disengaged with politics. They are just seeking different, and more effective, channels to have their concerns addressed. Again, it is younger people who generally choose to join such groups adding to the evidence which suggests that declining turnout is an issue of effective representation rather than communication. Recent announcements by Gordon Brown on becoming Prime Minister seem to acknowledge that people are looking for different, more effective forms of representation, rather than actually turning off from politics. Low turnout, it can be argued may not be a matter of increasing apathy, but rather the sign of a more thoughtful and sophisticated electorate.

The issue of how effective the current political system is at representing the concerns of voters is further complicated by the increasing complexity of society and of the decisions which politicians need to take. Politics is now a full time profession only open to those who are devoted to it from an early age. This has reduced the variety of backgrounds for MPs making them appear less representative and more remote from voters. Greater ethnic and social diversity may also have increased Parliament’s difficulties in representing the wider public. In this more complex scenario, the selection process of MPs has remained largely unchanged, left in the hands of a small number of local activists who select candidates on the basis of their own interests rather than of the wider community. The First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system operated in the UK, which means that many votes are wasted, may also contribute to the systemic failure of the British political system to represent society.

The inability of MPs in the current political system to effectively represent their constituents also means that many of those who are socially excluded are unable to have their concerns addressed. This means that the weakest in society are also frequently the least likely to vote. This is a long term, long recognised problem which has been the subject of much research.

The disappearance of clear lines of social division has also removed much of the ideological conflict that may have maintained an unrealistically high turnout in the second half of the twentieth century. The recent turnout in the French Presidential elections would indicate that ideological contention could quickly resurrect turnout in post-industrial societies. Increasing levels of prosperity and education have led to many people developing more specialised interests, both political and social. Perhaps high levels of political party membership in the 1950s were not the result of a particular commitment but due to the fact that there was nothing more exciting to do than attend the local Conservative Party dinner dance.

Aside from all these structural issues on how politics in the UK works and how society has changed, there is also the fact that in 2001 and 2005, the result of the general elections was believed to be a foregone conclusion.
So, where does all this leave the issue of new media in political communications? It has been shown that the development of increasingly professionalised news and media strategies by political parties and the relationship between politicians and media may well have contributed to declining levels of trust in politics and politicians. However, the extent to which these developments have been the primary cause of this disaffection can be strongly contested.

Whether one believes that political disengagement, particularly among young people, is primarily due to media manipulation by politicians or declining standards of journalism, or whether it is due to structural issues within society and the UK’s political system, new media could still potentially play a constructive role. For those who believe in the former new media could provide a tool to verify the claims of politicians, or for politicians to get away from the sound bite and scandal obsessed media. For those who support the latter hypothesis, new media could provide one of the forums in which the political system and the public could reconnect and debate how British democracy might be reformed to make it more representative. Through their interactivity and proliferation, new media technologies potentially lend themselves to this discussion and have already been cited as the determining factor in increasing turnout and the outcome of electoral contests.

Clearly the development of new media based on Internet and mobile technology can only be one part of any solution to debates around the strength and legitimacy of British democracy. However, any new technology has the ability to be a conduit for change, either positive or negative. Young people are the least likely to vote and among the most likely to use new communications technologies. It is therefore worthwhile to examine what the potential of these new technologies is and whether they can contribute at least some part towards creating a better democracy.