• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Journal of Public Affairs J Public Affairs 7: 219-234 (2007) ..*";• ®w)l£Y Published online in Wiley InterScience %^ (www.interscicnce.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.266 ^** Too much of a good thing: the 'problem' of political communications in a mass media democracy Ivor Gaber* Media and Politics, University of Bedfordshire, UK • Francis Fukuyama asks: '.. .is liberal democracy prey to serious internal contradictions, contradictions so serious tbat they will eventually undermine it as a political system?' Tfjis paper argues that one of tbese internal contradictions' is tbe political communications process and it can be sufficiently serious to undermine the democratic system—but such an undermining is not inevitable. Tbe problem can be described as follows: Democratic systems require tbat citizens are kept fully informed by governments (and others) iti the interests of transparency and ultimately accountability. Hence, all political communi- cations have, as tbeir final objective, tbe accountability of politicians at the ballot box. Wus all political communications bave wbat can be described as 'above' and 'below' tbe line content We above-the-line is tbe actual content of tbe message, tbe below-tbe-line is the implicit one of think better of me and my colleagues think worse of my opponents'. Consequently, no tnatter bow personally honest and open ati individual politician might be, the democratic system requires her or him to be always thinking about securing a successful result at tbe ballot box. Thus we bave tbe 'political communications paradox'. Voters tvatit politicians to be botiest atid accountable but this very demand tneans that politicians, implicitly, always bave to have another agenda in operation wben they are communicating witb tbe public, i.e. securing tbeir approval and theti tbeir support As a result tbe trust which is a fundamental to the workings of a democratic system is constantly being undertnined. Tbis bas two effects. First, tbat governments are obliged to make cotnmunications, ratber than delivery, tbeir real priority and secotid trust, tiot just in politiciatis but in the political system as a whole, tends to wane over time, which in turn endatigers tbe very system it was designed to underpin. But this decline is not inevitable because the system has some in-built self-correcting mechanisms These include: the rise of new parties and/or leaders who portray tbetnseWes as new' and 'untainted'— New Labour, New Conservatives, etc., an altnost regular 're-balancing' of the power relationship tbat exists between politicians and tbe civil service, particularly in tbe •Correspondence to: Ivor Gabcr, Research Professor, Media and Politics, University of Bedfordshire, Luton Campus. Park Square, Luton LUI 3JU, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright -) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, August 2007 DOI: 10.1002/pa 220 Ivor Gaber comtnunications field, tbe rise of new forms of communication that seek to by-pass tbe itistitutional roadblocks that are perceived as being the cause of tbe probletns and finally increased attention by Journalists and academics to tbe process of political communi- cations makes it more difficult for politicians to continue witb business as usual' as far as tbeir communicatioti activities are concerned. Copyrigbt c 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. there is now a well-ingrained popular political systems, the key issue is that of there view across tbe country that our political being too little political communications, in institutions and tbeir politicians are fail- modern democratic systems, and specifically in ing, untrustwortby, and disconnected from the UK in the 21st century, the 'problem' tbe great tnass of tbe British people. This appears to be one of over-supply? last point cannot be stressed too strongly. The other question to be addressed is We have been struck by Just how wide and whether this problem' of political communi- deep is the contetnpt felt for formal politics cation is so serious that it has the potential lo in Britain.^ undermine democracy? Or do liberal democ- Power Inquiry (2006, March). racies develop feedback, and self<orrecting, mechanisms that ensure the system's continu- I always ask myself 'Why is this lying ing survival? bastard, lying to me?' To some extent what follows is Hamlet, feremy Paxman BBC TV interviewer' without the Prince' for this analysis examines the flow of political communications, in terms How do you tell when a politician is lying.'' of the originators, i.e. between the Govern- When you see bis lips tnoving? ment (and other public and political bodies) Stand-up comedians (too numerous and the public, and largely ignores the crucial to mention) question as to the extent to which the mass media add their own intentional and/or accidental distortions to this flow. This is a Introduction major issue which has been addressed by many scholars in recent years, including by this In The End of History and the Last Man the author (Barnett and Gaber, 2(K) 1; Franklin, 20O4). American scholar Francis Fukuyama asks \..is liberal democracy prey to serious internal contradictions, contradictions so serious that they will eventually undermine The problem it as a political system?' (Fukuyama, 1993) The problem" of political communications can This paper asks, could one of these internal be summarized thus: contradictions' relate to the problem' of poli- tical communication? In this context political • Democratic systems require that citizens be communication is taken to refer to the two- kept fully informed by governments (and w^ay flow of information between government others) in the interests of transparency, and government bodies (at all levels) and and ultimately, accountability. politicians (of all parties) and the public? And. • Hence, all political communications have, as it also asks, is this 'problem, in part, related to their final objective, the accountability- of the fact that whereas, with non-democratic politicians at the ballot box. • As a result, all political communications Quoted in the Observer 2 August 1998 the Observer Profile: Jeremy Paxman. national monument: Paxo Brit- have what can be described as above" and annica by John Naughton. 'below' the line content. The above-the-line Copyright u 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, August 2007 DOI: 10.1002/pa Problem of political communications 221 being the actual content of the message, the ... money and power are able to filter out below-the-line, the implicit one of think tbe news fit to print, tnarginalize dissent better of me and my colleagues, think worse and allow the government and dominant of my opponents'. private interests to get tbeir message across • Thus, the 'political communication para- to tbe public. dox'— voters want politicians to be honest (Herman and Chomsky, 1994, p. 2) and accountable but this very demand means that politicians (and their proxies), And, as philosopher Onora O'Neill noted in implicitly, have another agenda in operation her 2002 Reith Lecture, informed consent' when they communicate with the public, also presupposes that recipient's will trust the i.e. securing their approval and subsequent information they receive — certainly not some- electoral support. thing that can be taken for granted in • This leads to communications w^hich are contemporary Western democracies. O'Neill produced largely to achieve a positive points out, that transparency, far from enhan- impact rather than public enlightenment, cing tnist among the general public can itself and this, over time, leads to the trust which be damaging, she writes: is a fundamental to the workings of a demo- cratic system being undermined. ... cotnplete opetiness and transparency has done little to build or restore public • This has two effects. First, governments trust On the contrary, trust seemingly bas make communications, rather than delivery, receded as transparency bas advanced. their real priority. Perbaps on refiection we sbould not be • Second, trust, not just in politicians but in wbolly surprised. It is quite clear that tbe the political system as a whole, wanes. This very technologies tbat spread information in turn endangers the very system it was so easily and efficietitly are every bit as designed to underpin. good at spreading tnisinformation and disinformation. Some sorts of openness Informed consent and transparency may be bad for trust.^ Representative democratic systems require 'informed consent'. In other words, for the Or as recentiy put by the founder of the system to work effectively, citizens should be World Wide Web, Tim Bemers-Lee: equipped with the knowledge that will enable tbere is a great danger tbat it becomes a them to properly to carry out their electoral place wbere utitruths start to spread more obligations. Informed consent' does not just tbati trutbs. or it becomes a place which mean the public receiving information (that becomes increasingly unfair in some way.^ they trust) about the activities of governments (and others) about what they have done, what Thus we have the first of several of the they are doing and are planning to do. It also problematics of political communication— requires that opposition parties are given the namely that transparency, whilst in theory a space to communicate their views on the sine qua non of democratic systems, might in Government's record, its future plans and their fact be an obstacle. One explanation for this own alternative proposals. Without these activities there can be no transparency no lies in the sheer quantity of information—spun accountability and, ultimately, no democracy. or unspun — that the public, or their inter- But informed consent' is not an unproble- mediaries (the mass media) have to process on matic concept. There are those (Herman and ^O'Neill O. 2002 Reith Lecture 4 viewed 14 Juty 2006 at Chomsky, 1994) who argue that this consent' http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/rcith2002/lecturer.,shtml is artificial or 'manufactured' because in a Viuardian 3 November 2(K>6 Creator of web warns of capitalist system fniudsters and cheats: Blogging one of biggest perils, says innovator'.

Load more

  17

Copy Link