Effective Political Communication - Research Paper Example

 Effective Political Communication Introduction Umland (1999) in his review of the article entitled; ‘The Grass-Roots of Russia’s Second Revolution’ indicates that ‘politics is … understood as a decision-making process characterized by a constant communication and interaction between the State, on the one side and independent political and civil society.’ Effective political communication is critical for a country to maintain a good reputation in how it deals with those who should benefit from the political process - citizens. Democracy is at the root of effective political communication and if the communication process is to be effective then the needs of the citizens to communicate on various issues in order to have them addressed must be fulfilled. This requires then a level of professionalism from both the political organisations and the journalist – the two institutions which are critical to the political communication system. McNamara (2010) definition of effective is worth mentioning here – ‘reaching the citizenry in such a way as to impact their views in a positive way.’ Numerous communication theories have been put forward in order to analyse communication in the political sphere. Grunig and Hunt (1984) has put forward four models of PR, three of which emphasise one way communication and a two-way symmetrical model which is the ideal situation for a democracy and thus for effective political communication,. This model employs communication for the purpose of negotiating with publics, resolving conflicts, and for the promotion of mutual understanding and respect between the organisation and its publics. Present day political communication seems to be lacking to a great extent in this regard. This paper looks at the work of a number of writers/researchers who have done work in the area of political communication. Each of them has put forward their theory on political communication. The ones which are of interest are introduced and critiqued separately. The paper also provides a comparative analysis of their work. Highlights and Critique of Viewpoints Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) in their book ‘The Crisis of Public Communication’ looks at the issues affecting effective political communication. Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) attribute this crisis to four sources: the change in communication technologies; changes in the structure and culture of the surrounding social and political system; the drive by the two political communication institutions – politicians and journalists, to understand the strategies used by each other in order to make adjustments in response to each others actions; and the changes –‘ebbs and flows’ of the interest of the audience in politics. Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) link the communicators and the audience in a network of expectations shared by them by indicating the roles of each of the actors in the system that are complementary to each other. In light of this Blumler and Gurevitch (1995, p. 15) indicates that if the audience plays a partisan role then the role of the media should be that of an editorial guide while that of the politician should be that of a gladiator. When the audience role is that of a liberal citizen the media personnel complements this by being the moderator and the politician as a rational persuader. If the audience plays the role of a monitor then the media is expected to be the watchdog and the politician is supposed to provide information which is needed for assessment. The audience’s role as a spectator is complemented by the media’s role in providing entertainment when the politician is expected to be the performer or actor in this scenario. Blumler and Gurevitch (1995, p. 12) use the systems theory approach to analyse the media and in that vein sees the media as a system consisting of a four components: i. Political institutions in their communication aspects; ii. Media institutions in their political aspects; iii. Audience orientation to political communication; and iv. Communication – relevant aspects of political. It is expected that as with any system the political communication system undergo changes as each of the players – in this case the institutions – media and the political organisation, as well as the audience which they are mainly interested in make changes in how play their part. Blumler and Gurevitch (1995, p. 203) indicates that ‘system-based features of political communication give characteristic shape to a society’s public sphere, favouring certain sources and styles of political discourse over others and enabling or impeding a democratic engagement of leaders with citizens.’ The real issue is whether or not each part of the system is doing what it should be doing in order to ensure effective political communication. The information provided by Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) seems to indicate that the institutions are not playing their role effectively when they indicate that in the two countries studied – US and Britain – the political communication process seems to be getting into more problems. They further add that the political communication system seems to be acting against the aim of citizenship rather than with it. In their assessment of what has gone wrong Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) indicates that political communication systems are evolving and are therefore unstable. Four sources of instability have been identified. One of them relates to changes in communication technologies. Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) points out that although this innovation provides opportunities for politicians to get their messages across, they also present demands they must satisfy as they lead to a reconfiguration of the relationship among the key communicators and receivers. Dahlgren (2005) in his paper ‘the internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation,’ looks at the Internet and the public sphere in political communication studies. The paper ‘pulls together key elements in the public sphere perspective’ by analysing three critical dimensions – the structural; the representational, and the interactional. Dahlgren (2005) also addressed a central role in the ‘current difficulties facing democracy, refracted through the lens of the public sphere perspective’. Dahlgren (1995) seeks to gain an understanding of the role of the internet focuses on the how it has impacted on the ‘destabilization of political communication systems’ in both a positive and a negative sense. The positive side has resulted in an increase in political voices; new means of engaging politicians, and ‘further, cultural heterogeneity may suggests dispersions and openings that can be developed for democratic gains.’ As it relates to the negative side Dahlgren (1995, p. 150-151) indicates that this has resulted in chaos, inefficiency, unpredictability, and what he has described as ‘the centripetal forces of private capital … coalescing under the prevailing neoliberal order, drawing power away from the formal political arena via a variety of mechanisms and thereby constricting and weakening democracy.’ Dahlgren (2005) indicates that the fact that democracy has encountered difficulties is now an established topic and the evidence can be seen in relation to issues relating to ‘the public spheres’, structures, representations, and modes of interaction.’ Dahlgren (2005, p. 151) although seeing the Internet as not only relevant but central indicates that ‘too much dispersion and polyvocality undercut political effectiveness and hamper governance.’ Stanyer (2007) in his book ‘Modern Political Communication: Mediated Politics in Uncertain Times,’ looks at similar developments in political communication in the United States of America and the United Kingdom. He identifies the trends and emerging issues that are common to both countries and … how they impact on the democratic political communication systems in both countries. Stanyer (2005) looks at ‘how political candidates, parties and governments respond to and make changes to the electoral terrain they encounter; how the traditional news media adapt to alterations in patterns of media consumption, the reaction of the increasingly divided citizenry to the changing political media environment; and the complex and intricate process of interaction between each element of a system. Stanyer (2007) suggests that the political communication systems in both countries are constantly evolving and therefore sought to determine whether they continue to serve all citizens in a way that can be considered to be commendable. Stanyer (2007) like others draws information from a wide body of knowledge outside the field of politics which provided new insights into the changes taking place in advanced industrial democracies. Stanyer (2007) draws extensively from the work of Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) but makes no real attempt to be different by looking at other parts of the world. In this ‘modern’ age information is widely available. Only an update of Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) work seem to have been intended. Stanyer (2007) pays special attention to the impact of the social, political economic and technological change on both the USA and the UK’s political communication systems. Even more emphasis has been placed on the changing relationship between political communicators and their audiences as well as to the changes in the way citizens respond to what is produced by political communicators. Stanyer (2007) speaks to the growing levels of uncertainty that exists as the relative job security that existed previously is no longer. The fact is that citizens, especially those impacted most by policies need to make their voices heard and they are now enabled by the emergence of the Internet. Stanyer (2007) points to the fact that it is the transformation that has resulted in a widening of existing divisions in both countries. However, this could not be further from the truth. Both rich and poor are being facilitated by the emergence of the internet and new ways of obtaining information as well as communicating with politicians. Those who do not make an effort to be heard are therefore not interested. The welfare system though facing challenges, especially in the UK has been taking care of some of the problems which the citizens deem critical to their well-being. Zetter (2008) in his book ‘Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion’ in his extensive coverage of lobbying shows off his experience and the reason for being voted Public Affairs Personality for the year 2008. Zetter (2008) all the information that is required for people interested in lobbying inclusive of academic qualifications and the professional associations that lobbyist should seek to gain membership in both the US and the UK in order to improve their chances of becoming successful and as proof of being of the highest standard. However, no information is given for individuals who are interested in becoming part of an association but do not reside in those countries. Zetter (2008) indicates how good lobbying can assist government in their role of providing governance as well as the role of the media in enabling lobbyist to engage in ‘the kind of grassroots campaigning which is still at the heart of the US lobbying industry’. Zetter (2008) also indicates that the activities of the lobbyists are ‘beneficial to the body politic and to democracy at large’ and emphasizes three attributes to successful public affairs which will enable effective political communication by politicians. These attributes have been contributed by Simon Astley- Director Parliamentary Relations, BAE Systems plc. They are: i. Accessibility – politicians need to be able to access company contact when required. ii. Candour – provide politicians with concise information in a timely manner. In transmitting messages it is important to understand the demands placed on politicians and take his into account when communicating with them. iii. ‘Finally, always remember that the first role of a politician is to respond to their constituents.’ This is important information for all of the actors in the political communication system and this is what Zetter (2008) seeks to do in his book. Zetter (2008) points to how person running campaigns can use technology in the form of blogs. Blogs have been made possible with the emergence of the Internet and thus provides a relatively new method of communicating. Zetter (2008) specifies lobbyist, but the lobbyist are citizens themselves who support various interest groups who are affected in some way by the actions of politicians, whether in getting legislation passed or otherwise and so with the growth of these professionals there is increasing representation. It would appear that lobbyist seems to be better helped by politicians when they contact them face to face in various arenas where they make presentations to different groups. In light of this communication technology may result in various groups getting lost among the large number of people who seek to get a word in to the political organizations and so make their voices heard. Zetter (2008, p. 31) indicates that the purpose of public affairs campaign is to raise an organisation’s profile. This Zetter (2008) states is effectively political public relations, the objective of which is to gain increased recognition of the organisation among its key stakeholders. Zetter (2008, p. 32) also looked at ways to establish contact and indicates that the best time to establish contact with politicians is before you actually need them. It therefore means that citizens should continuously engage politicians before they are confronted with the critical issues. Zetter (2008) has provided advice and tips from his experience and from various contributors. One of the key tips is that in order for politicians to be successful their public affairs team teams need to manage relationships and communications with key stakeholders. As the issues increase and become complex politicians are at pains to retain the information they obtain from an increasing stakeholder audience and so a system to manage customer relations becomes critical (Zetter 2008, p. 87). McNamara McNamara (2010) in his book ‘The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practice’, focuses on the trends taking place in the media landscape. It focuses on bringing a level of clarity to media and communication. It also seeks to assess the hype which has created unrealistic expectations in relation to communication technology. Additionally, it identifies the numerous philosophical and ideological positions that have created the framework for media and communication in order to provide an integrated view of ‘the dynamic mediascape of the early 21st century’, which is essentially a systems perspective. McNamara (2010) sees the Internet as the backbone of global communication. One of the central themes of his work is that ‘in parallel with and because of digitalization and convergence’, an even greater development is taking place – emergence McNamara (2010, p. 7). McNamara (2010) emphasizes that it is the emergent properties that needs to be understood in order to identify where and how life as we know it continues to change. The varying viewpoints presented have mainly looked at the effects of the political communication on democracy in only two countries. However, these countries unlike so many others have provided various means of addressing issues faced by its citizens> There welfare programs are extensive and seek to protect the most vulnerable. The audience is getting its views across when it matters most and we have seen that the internet and blogging has successfully facilitated Barack Obama in his 2008 campaign to which most of the writers have acknowledged. It therefore means that people need to be educated on how to make use of these technologies. Educating the populace is very important in a democratic society and this will force politicians and journalists to exercise a higher level of respect for their audience by being more responsible in their communications. Only Zetter (2008) stressed education for lobbyists. Comparative Analysis Most of the writers have utilised a systems approach as well as a media approach to political communication. Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) points to the increasing prominence of television as a means of communication in their time while the more current writers speak to the internet (Dahlgren 2005; Stanyer 2007; McNamara 2010) all indications of the fundamental changes that have taken place and continues to shape the media. However, McNamara (2010) points out that the internet is nothing new as it has been with us since the late 1970’s but has emerged as the medium of the 21st century. Other forms of media have also emerged as they have been impacted by technological innovations and so we will continue to have the press, radio and television as they continue to emerge with the introduction of new and innovative technology. The role of the media in political communication cannot be over-emphasised. Stanyer (2007) suggest terms like ‘modern’, ‘new’ and ‘old’ are relevant to a time period. Therefore, those terms may no longer be applicable as new forms of communication technology continue to emerge. It is important that political communication extend to all types of media as they serve people with different interests. Like Dahlgren (2005), Zetter (2008) has stressed the importance of blogging as he dispelled the notion that it is more of a threat than an opportunity. Zetter (2008) states that: ‘If you have a message to promulgate in the corridors of power, a favourable mention on a blog …’ will ensure that it is seen by a wide cross-section of people. Conclusion What is clear however, is that there is no doubt that the Internet is seen as critical but that it also has to contend with other forms of media and also provides the means for innovation in the other forms of media while contributing to their emergence. The systems approach has been effectively used by Blumler and Gurevitch (1995), Stanyer (2005), and McNamara 2010. It has been used to determine whether changes has positively impacted communication, enabled each facet of the political communication system, facilitated the maintenance of adequate relationship between the parts, and thus enabling effective political communication. Dahlgren (2005) indicates that although critical political communication are in motion there is some uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of online discussions which has been facilitated by the Internet as participants are not very tolerant of the views of others, thus resulting in sometimes uncivilized forms of communication. What is also true is politicians rely on exposure from the media. Green-Pedersen and Stubager (2010,p. 665) indicates that politicians not only depend on the media but have an incentive to attempt to provide the framework for public debate and so they are very likely to be responsive to the media agenda.’ This indicates that the media still plays a critical role in political communication and is therefore required to play a critical role in its effectiveness like all other participants in the political communication system. The education of the audience will help them to play each of the four roles as defined by Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) effectively. Without this they will continue to be impoverished by the agenda setting nature of the media. References Blumler, J.G and Gurevitch, M. (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication. New York; Routeledge. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication: 22(2), p. 1478 – 162 Green-Pedersen, C. and Stubager, R. (2010). The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention? British Journal of Political Science. 40, p. 663-677 Grunig, J. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston McNamara, J. (2010). The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practice. New York: Peter Lang Stanyer, J. (2007). Modern Political Communication: Mediated Politics in Uncertain Times. USA: Polity Press Umland, A. (1999). Review Article: Grass-Roots of Russia’s Second Revolution. Journal of Government Studies and Transition Politics: 15(3), p. 114 – 120 Zetter, L (2008). Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion. Britain: Harriman House Ltd Read More