Political Communication in the Era of Professionalisation

Papathanassopoulos, Negrine, Mancini and Holtz-Bacha

Introduction

The central argument in this book is that contemporary practices in the content and conduct of political communication can be best understood when looked at in both an historical and comparative context. Rather than focus on, or become excited by, the most recent development in the conduct of political communication, be it new techniques of polling, 'spin doctoring', targeting or marketing, we need to develop a broader understanding of what each of these developments – singly and collectively – signifies. Furthermore, we need to do this in such a way as to begin to outline some of the common themes that permit us to understand changes in the conduct of political communication that pull together what has been, at least in the past, a fairly loose set of ideas, subjects and areas of interest.

One way in which this could be done, and we would argue should be done, is to provide a common point of focus, a common way in which we can begin to explore similarities as well as differences. That way is through the elaboration of the idea of the professionalisation of political communication.

As an idea, professionalisation – and we are fully aware of the contested nature of this word, as well as of its variants of profession, professionalisation, professionalism, and professional – allows us to identify and link up many things that should really be linked together. For example, the use of polls, the use of political consultants, practices of news management, the creation of a 'war room', or the use of focus groups, are probably best understood as part and parcel of the modern election campaign, as part of the 'professionalised Paradigm'. As Holtz-Bacha argues in this book.

professionalisation of political communication is a process of adaptation to, and as such a necessary consequence of, changes in the political system on the one side and the media system on the other and in the relationship of the two systems. These changes follow from the modernisation of society, which is a development that is still going on and will take place in similar political systems sooner or later. Professionalisation in this sense is a general and not culture-bound concept. Its actual appearance and the degree of professionalisation in a given country are however dependent on a country's specific social and political structures and processes.

More generally, professionalisation can also be treated as an idea that permits us to examine issues that go beyond the immediate concern with political communication during elections. It can, for instance, provide a prism through which one can begin to explore the centralisation of governmental communication, the communication strategies of governments and interest groups (Davies, 2002; Schlesinger & Tumber, 1994) and the developing relationship between all political actors, including political parties, candidates and social movements and the media. Nevertheless, the main focus in this book is on political parties, candidates for political office, and governments.

Professionalisation, as understood in this book, thus refers to a process of change, in the field of politics and communication as elsewhere, that, either explicitly or implicitly, brings about a better and more efficient – and more studied – organisation of resources and skills in order to achieve desired objectives, whatever they might be. In effect, the idea of the professionalisation of political communication suggests a number of things:

* It suggests the creation of a more 'rational' and more streamlined organisational structure or a more 'appropriate' set of practices. This could be taking place in relation to the operation of communication facilities (a more skilful use of television, for example), campaigning techniques (better use of polling data or better targeting of voters, for example), the re-organisation of political parties themselves (as in centralisation), the re-organisation of government communication systems (as in the creation of a centralised communication directorate to coordinate publicity) and even in respect of media-politics relations (as in news management techniques). This use of the word parallels the idea, proposed by Leon Mayhew, that what we are currently experiencing is a 'rationalisation of persuasion' and that the intent behind this process is to find and utilise 'effective means of persuasion based on research on audiences and the organisation of systematic campaigns' (1997, p. 190).

* It suggests that the process of professionalisation is ongoing and takes place within societies that are themselves undergoing a process of modernisation. The word modernisation may have many different meanings: here we are referring essentially to the processes of differentiation and secularisation taking place within contemporary societies. At the same time, we wish to emphasise the growth of a plurality of sources of information that make individuals less dependent on a single source of information and/or persuasion. This would apply to many different fields, including the field of religion, politics, culture, etc.

* It suggests that there are many reasons as to why it unfolds (see Chapter 2). In the case of political parties, the reasons might include the need to confront a changing electorate with no particular allegiances, as well as the need to find ways to persuade and mobilise them. In the case of governments and interest groups the reasons might include the need to find better ways to get media attention and to place items on the public's agenda. There are other such reasons which locate the process of professionalisation within what Wernick has called 'the logic of electoralism' (1994, p. 142), namely, the process whereby political parties, amongst others, employ a range of skills to meet their objectives of gaining and sustaining power. Sometimes, the development of professional skills is linked to technological change, as in the use of television or internet...