Political Communication and Social Theory

Aeron Davis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780415547123
• eBook ISBN: 9781136940279
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film History & Criticism

Political Communication and Social Theory presents an advanced and challenging text for students and scholars of political communication and mass media in democracies. It draws together work from across political communication, media sociology and political sociology, and includes a mix of theoretical debate and current examples from several democratic media systems. Its wide ranging discussions both introduce and contest the traditional scholarship on a number of contemporary topics and issues. These include:

• comparative political and media systems
• theories of democracy, representation and the public sphere
• political party communication, marketing and elections
• the production of news media and public policy
• media sociology and journalist-source relations
• celebrity politics, popular culture and political leadership
• new media and online democracy
• national-global politics and international political communication
• foreign policy-making, war and media
• the crisis of public communication in established democracies.

At the same time, Political Communication and Social Theory also offers a fascinating investigation of the causes of crisis in established political and media systems. In today's democracies, trust in politicians, state institutions and mainstream media sources has dropped to new lows. The traditional business model that sustained journalism is failing and nations are struggling to respond to the existing global recession and impending environmental and resource crises. Drawing on interviews with over 100 experienced politicians, journalists and civil servants, Aeron Davis explores how the varied political actors and communicative processes, at the centre of UK democracy, may or may not be contributing to such crisis tendencies.

Chapter 1
In search of the ‘good’ democracy

Comparing political and media systems

Introduction

What political and media systems are likely to produce a ‘good’ democracy? This first chapter attempts to navigate a way through this debate via an examination of cross-country comparative work. Such a discussion, of necessity, also highlights the conflicting democratic norms and practical considerations that push interested parties towards very different conclusions. The intention here is to identify, not just the alternative systems on offer, but also the interpretive frameworks which inform any evaluative process. Such a schema then enables one to place the UK’s own institutions and systems in relative context.

The chapter is in three parts. The first introduces the literature on comparative politics, media and political communication. It discusses the many varieties of democratic political and communication systems that currently exist as well as identifying the contrasting normative ideals that underpin those systems. The next section briefly outlines the ‘crisis’ of democracies debate and links it to the preceding discussion. Finally, it locates the component parts of UK democracy in relation to the existing, practised alternatives on offer.

Comparing political and communication systems

Comparing the comparisons: the highs and lows of comparative work

Before setting out a comparative framework it is worth briefly looking at the strengths and weaknesses of this form of research. In Livingstone’s words (2003: 478): ‘Cross-national comparisons are exciting but difficult, creative but problematic … attacked as impossible and defended as necessary.’ Starting with the ‘necessary’, first, comparative work both informs one of the alternative systems that exist and sheds new light on one’s own system. Most social science research focuses on one national system and, consequently, its theory, interpretive frameworks and conclusions are limited or biased by this. Comparative research, in part, pushes against these limitations, can help develop more abstract universal theory, as well as challenge universalist claims based on national samples. Second, comparative work also has a practical, normative dimension. It enables one to identify, classify and focus on specific structures, systems and practices that are either ‘most similar’ or ‘most different’ (Przeworski and Teune, 1970) in two or more countries. This allows researchers and policy-makers to learn about and hypothesise, in relation to alternatives, and then test and legislate accordingly (see discussions in Livingstone, 2003, Hallin and Mancini, 2004, Hague and Harrop, 2007: ch. 5).

While comparative work has been a feature of political science research for several decades, similar work on political communication and media systems has been sporadic. Two texts, with very different approaches and methods, conveniently book-end the literature. At one end comes Siebert et al.’s Four Theories of the Press (1956) which sought to impose a four-fold typology on the world’s media systems. Despite several alternative studies and classifications in the intervening years (e.g., Merrill, 1974, Picard, 1985, Curran and Park, 2000a), the field was really re-ignited by Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) Comparing Media Systems. This developed a tripartite typology (‘polarized pluralist’, ‘democratic corporatist’, ‘liberal’) to describe the systems of 16 advanced democracies. While these works seek to develop clear classificatory models, within which nations are firmly placed, other texts (e.g., Swanson and Mancini, 1996, Gunther and Mughan, 2001a) adopt a different approach. These present collections of detailed, individual national studies, and then attempt to come to more generalised conclusions based on the repetition of specified phenomena. The number of nations selected is usually dictated by the chosen research method. At one end, studies choose large numbers of nations and apply and correlate several series of measures (Lijphart, 1984, 1999, Inglehart, 1997, Norris, 2000, 2004, Dalton, 2004). At the other end, researchers chose to focus on only a few countries and in depth at a particular element of a system, such as journalist practices, news contents or audience consumption (Donsbach and Patterson, 2004, Esser, 2008, Curran et al., 2009). In each of these cases, quantitative data sets are compared and contextualised within comparative discussions and debates. Normative questions are tested. Are ‘majoritarian’, two-party or ‘consensual’, multi-party electoral systems more effective and democratic? Does a free-market-based news media or a public-service-based and regulated system better serve citizens in democracies? Is a ‘partisan-advocate’ or ‘professional-objective’ journalist culture more desirable for a fourth estate media?

All these studies offer valuable insights. However, they, along with all comparative studies, have to navigate many practical issues and cannot avoid certain pitfalls. First, comparative researchers, however cosmopolitan in intent, still interpret and frame research through their own nation-state eyes. Country-influenced parameters and values are hard to avoid, and typologies may be crudely imposed on alien systems. Second, researchers have a tendency to adopt certain norms and apply ideological biases in their data collection and interpretations. Thus, on both these counts, Siebert et al. (1956) have frequently been accused of having a ‘cold war’ mentality and pushing a ‘modernization’ agenda that placed Western democracies above other systems (Nerone, 1995, Curran and Park, 2000b). This charge is still levied at contemporary Western-based studies (Zhao and Hackett, 2005, Hardy, 2008).

Third, methodological problems abound. Using the nation state as the de facto unit of measurement and comparison is flawed, quite simply because there are so many dimensions and variables to take into account. Finding correlations, as many comparative researchers do (Lijphart, 1999, Norris, 2000, 2004, Dalton, 2004), is not that statistically meaningful when only two or three dozen countries are compared, or when there are multiple independent, causal variables. Qualitative work is also limited as only a small number of countries can be practically compared and detailed country-specific knowledge is required. Slight differences in selection, sample, definitions, translations, etc., can have significant consequences for findings (see Inglehart, 1997, methods appendix, Livingstone, 2003). Thus Benson and Hallin’s (2007) and Esser’s (2008) comparisons of French and US news content offer quite different interpretations of their relative journalistic cultures. Fourth, with the spread of globalisation (see Chapter 8), the notion of an autonomous nation state is itself an increasingly debated concept. Nation-state boundaries are becoming harder to define and there seems an increasing degree of political and media system convergence (Swanson and Mancini, 1996, Hallin and Mancini, 2004). Such elements introduce another layer of complexity and additional set of caveats into comparative work.

Despite these many concerns all the positive arguments for comparative research continue to be valid. Accordingly, this chapter now proceeds to outline the particular elements and classificatory systems applied to political and media systems across a range of studies. To narrow the parameters it focuses on ‘established democracies’ and, like the studies it draws upon, relies more on data from wealthier, Western systems. Like these studies, normative schema, and discussions of which systems produce ‘stronger’ forms of democracy, remain a central feature.

Comparing political systems

All large, modern ‘liberal democracies’ are, in effect, representative democracies or ‘deformed polyarchies’ (Dahl and Lindblom, 1953). According to Hague and Harrop (2007), eighty-nine of them can be distinguished and separated from the fifty-four ‘illiberal democracies’ or forty-nine ‘authoritarian regimes’ that currently exist. Representative, liberal democracies are to be distinguished from other regimes by basic criteria that include (see Dahl’s original definition, 1971): free and fair elections, the right to vote, freedom of association and the right to join or lead a political organisation, an independent media providing free expression and alternative information. Beyond that, representative democracy comes in many forms. In theory and practice there is always a compromise between competing ideals as well as practical circumstances. Individual rights sit uncomfortably alongside ideals of equality and community. States must act with authority and efficiency but also with public legitimacy and respect for individuals. A series of checks and balances on state power need to be in operation but these should not overly hinder new legislation and delivery. Across nations (and periods) attempts to balance such ideals and practical requirements have resulted in a plethora of political, economic and public communication systems.

Studies of comparative political systems have noted several key differences. One regards the balance of power between the head of government, the executive, the legislature and judiciary. In some systems, parliaments have rather more influence over the executive-driven legislative process than others. In Sweden, parliamentary committees are able to substantially alter government proposals but such committees have negligible influence in the UK Parliament. Some states have a constitutional court and/or allow for judicial review of new legislation. ‘Judicial activism’ is a regular feature of the German, Canadian and US systems but non-existent in Sweden and the UK. Moving further away from the three ‘estates’ of government, concerns are with how much power is devolved to regional or federal-level institutions, and how autonomous is a country’s central bank, civil service and other institutions. The US appears to locate substantial power in the office of the President yet, at the same time, much legislative and economic power is also held by Congress, the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve and individual states.

Another system’s reference point regards the electoral system and the issue of fair representation. The most common systems are ‘majoritarian’, first-past-the-post and proportional representation (PR). Examples of the forty-seven majority voting systems include the UK, US, India and Canada. This system directly links individual politicians to their constituencies or states and, in most cases, is dominated by two major parties with one party taking control of government. However, such systems discourage smaller parties, exclude minority groups and return parties that are disproportionate to the overall vote. In the UK majoritarian system, one party has almost always gained a majority of MPs but never more than 43 per cent of the vote. In the US, all states, whether large or small, still get two representatives in the Senate. Examples of the 70 PR systems include Brazil, Israel, Finland and the Netherlands. Here, voting procedures ensure that the seat distribution in a parliament reflects the wider popular vote and, most often, encourages several parliamentary parties and coalition governments. Finland has had an average of 5.24 ‘effective’ parties, and Israel 4.55 since the Second World War. However, proportional representation often results in weaker constituency-representative links and is also associated with indecisive coalition governments. There are several variations on, or combinations of, the majoritarian and PR systems, notably in Germany, Mexico, France, Japan and South Korea (figs. in Lijphart, 1999: 76, Hague and Harrop, 2007: 187). The question of representation also stretches beyond the procedural to include elements such as gender, class, ethnicity and religion. No system is, or can be, truly representative here but some are more socially reflective than others (see collection in Norris, 1997). For example, 47 per cent of Sweden’s and 44.5 per cent of South Africa’s lower chamber representatives are women, as opposed to 19.5 per cent of the UK’s, 16.8 per cent of the US’s and 11.3 per cent of Japan’s (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009).

Each of these factors clearly influence normative evaluations in comparative work. Lijphart (1984, 1999), for example, makes a strong case for arguing that ‘consensus’ systems of government are democratically stronger than ‘majoritarian’ ones such as the UK ‘Westminster Model’. Consensus systems, typified by Switzerland and Belgium, tend to produce multi-party legislatures, coalition governments, use PR electoral systems, have stronger legislatures, and encourage the devolution of state power to other institutions and regions.

However, the formal procedures and institutions are only one means of assessing the strength of democracy in contemporary states. Several scholars choose to evaluate a democracy on the basis of whether it encourages more ‘minimal’ or ‘maximal’ (Crouch, 2004) forms of participation. In more ‘maximal’ democracies, civil society and the levels of public participation are stronger, and politics is more inclusive and deliberative (Pateman, 1970, Fishkin, 1992, Putnam, 2000, Dryzak, 2002). Two obvious indicators of participation are the number of votes citizens can take part in and levels of voter turnout in elections. The post-war turnout in Austria has varied between 80 and 97 per cent, and in Italy, between 81 and 94 per cent. In the UK it has been lower, between 59 and 84 per cent and dropped lower still in Japan, the US and Canada. The US can claim to have one of the highest per capita numbers of elected officials (some half a million) but also one of the lowest voter turnouts of any mature democracy. Similarly, participation can be measured in terms of levels of political party membership and party identification. At the start of this century, 18 per cent of Austrian voters, 10 per cent of Finns and 4 per cent of Italians were members of political parties (Hague and Harrop, 2007: 238). Participation also includes membership of interest groups and other forms of activity, varying from joining union strikes and public demonstrations, to contacting political representatives and signing petitions (see Norris, 2000, Putnam, 2000, Pattie et al., 2004). Of 57 countries surveyed in the World Values Survey (2005–8), 37.5 per cent of French, but only 10.2 per cent of Japanese, said they had attended a lawful demonstration.

Several of these political system factors are listed across twelve selected democracies: Finland (Fi), France (Fr), Germany (G), India (In), Italy (It), Japan (J), Mexico (M), South Africa (Sa), Sweden (Sd), Switzerland (Sz), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). The selection includes representatives of Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) ‘polarized pluralist’, ‘democratic corporatist’ and ‘liberal’ systems, and several examples of Lijphart’s ‘majoritarian’ and ‘consensus’ style political systems. It also includes four non-Western nations, three of which are classed as ‘new’ democracies, as well as a range of different-sized nations. Table 1.1 notes the following factors, each of which relate to points in the discussion so far: 1) population size of a country, 2) Freedom House’s democracy rating, 3) the electoral system, 4) whether governments are

Table 1.1 Comparing political systems

predominantly one-party or coalition, 5) if it is a presidential, parliamentary or other system of government, 6) whether or not there is a federal system of states, cantons, etc., 7) Lijphart’s (1999) index of executive dominance of parliament and 8) his assessment of the strength of a country’s judicial review process, 9) the nation’s last election turnout for a parliamentary election, and 10) the proportion of citizens attending a lawful demonstration. In each measure, when clear, the extremes or best (↑) and worst (↓) scores are marked.

Comparing media systems within a political framework

Comparisons of media systems in democracies share a number of the same normative and interpretive frameworks of political science. Political philosophers from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (e.g., Paine, Jefferson, J. S. Mill, Locke) to the twentieth (e.g., Lippmann, Dewey, Dahl, Habermas) have allocated the press and public media a central role in democracy; something acknowledged in many constitutions and human rights declarations. Accordingly, a set of normative ‘ideal’ media and public communication functions in democracies have emerged (see Keane, 1991, Norris, 2000, Curran, 2002, for discussions). These include providing: a source of pluralist and ‘objective’ information widely available to all citizens; a check (‘watchdog role’) on the activities of powerful institutions and individuals; an arena for rational deliberation and debate on the issues and policies affecting society; and the means by which a wide range of citizens and interest groups may put forward their views. However, as with political systems, ideals are in conflict and practical limitations are constraining. It is also hard to position media in a society as it hovers between the state, market and civil society.

This last point takes us to the most commonly debated issue in comparative media systems work – that of whether the funding and/or regulation of public communication s...

Table of contents

• Communication and Society
• Contents
• List of tables
• Preface and acknowledgements
• Chapter 1 In search of the ‘good’ democracy
• Chapter 2 Citizens, political representation and parliamentary public spheres
• Chapter 3 Professionalised parties, the electoral mechanism and the new wave of party leaders
• Chapter 4 The production of policy and news
• Chapter 5 Journalist–source relations, mediated reflexivity and the politics of politics
• Chapter 6 Celebrity politics, symbolic communication and media capital in the political field
• Chapter 7 New media and fat democracy
• Chapter 8 Politics and communication between the national and the global
• Chapter 9 Foreign policy-making, war and the disembedding of cosmopolitan elite networks
• Chapter 10 The ‘crisis’ of politics and communication in ageing democracies
• List of interviewees
• Bibliography
• Index