Manipulative, one-way traffic, too positive… according to voters. Recognizable, coloured, reliable… according to experts. Time for change? Amendment? Or leave it as it is? This article is the latest follow-up to the articles ‘Political communication: insight into the working method’, ‘Political communication: experts speak’ and ‘Political communication: voters speak’.
Transparency
Communication is of great importance in the voter market. This is partly about transparency: communication aimed at making the political party’s offering transparent. This often only happens to a limited extent, because political parties sometimes have an interest in obfuscation or lack of transparency. This then has an effect on the attitude that voters form towards political communication. Voters therefore find political communication not very objective, because it is too colored. They also feel that they are being manipulated considerably by political communication, because many arguments are difficult for them to test. This is related to the degree of reliability and credibility, which is rated fairly low.
Campaigns
Campaigns are considered a good instrument for informing voters of positions and further information, because in this way only the important spearheads of a party are made public and the voter does not have to read an entire party program themselves. Parties would do well to present fewer positions, so that it becomes more clear for the voter.
Communication tools and messages
It is striking that voters believe that political parties should also communicate with them more often outside campaign periods. The means of communication used by political parties are often noticed by voters. Commercials on television, politicians on the street and posters are particularly popular tools. Voters would like to see these resources again if there are no elections around the corner. Voters would like to be continuously informed of party developments so that they know better which party to vote for during the next election campaign. Messages, on the other hand, must be conveyed less rosy and more realistic. More attention should be paid to the actual content of the message than to the way in which this message is conveyed. In this way, reliability and credibility in the eyes of voters will increase. Political communication must also become more two-way traffic and more accessible to voters. Parties must show that they are really there for citizens and are not only interested in their voting behavior. Perhaps in this way the group of people who never vote will also be reached and feel addressed.
Expert opinion
The voters’ opinion is shared by political experts. They also think political communication is too one-way. They also find it colored and not or partially objective. Experts do not fully agree on the degree of manipulation; While one person believes that it plays a major role, the other believes that it does not matter at all. Both agree that the reliability is quite good and the communication is credible. Political communication suffers greatly from the openness that prevails on the Internet. Visitors often violate rules of decency and it is virtually impossible for politicians to respond to everything. Strong points of political communication are its recognisability, the major social impact of the communication and the fact that politicians can speak clearly and to the point.
The above conclusion leads to the following recommendations:
1. Interactive policy making
More use should be made of interactive policy making. Voters would like to participate more and be involved in policy development. Through interactive policymaking, more support and capacity for political decisions can be created among voters. The Internet can be a means to this end. This is currently not used enough to actively inform voters. A large audience can be reached at once via the Internet and therefore this opportunity must be used optimally. The accessibility of internet sites by voters must be regulated to avoid indecent behavior.
2. Information
Political parties must continue to actively inform voters outside election periods. Objectivity must be paramount here. The messages should be less colored to appear more reliable. A message with content is more appreciated than a message with nice packaging. A stricter selection must also be made in the agenda items that a political party puts forward as the most important. Parties currently want to convey too many positions at the same time and that is confusing for voters, because they can no longer properly assess what parties actually stand for.
Debates should take place more often. Parties can thus confront each other about keeping their promises during election periods. This way, voters can better gauge the reliability of political parties and have less of a feeling of being manipulated. This way they can continue to monitor developments within and between political parties in a correct and understandable manner. In this context, concrete means of communication could also be used more often by political parties. A leaflet or brochure with clear information about current MPs could be distributed in city centers. In this way, parties show that they are also interested in the voter themselves and not just in their voting behavior.