Communication, Power and Politics

Political representation

The activity of making citizens’ voices, opinions and perspectives “present” in public policy making processes.

Occurs when political actors speak on the behalf of others

Formalistic representation

The institutional arrangements that precede and initiate representation.

Two dimensions: authorization and accountability

Authorization

The process by which a representative obtains their position.

Accountability

the ability of constituents to punish their representative for failing in act in accordance with their wishes or the responsiveness of the representative to the constituents

Descriptive representation

The extent to which a representative resembles those being represented.

Symbolic representation

The ways that a representative “stands for” the represented.

Substantive representation

the activity of representatives; the actions taken on behalf of the represented

Two models: delegate and trustee

A delegate

the representative has to carry out predefined preferences.

A trustee

a representative role with more freedom. the representative is trusted to use their own judgement and expertise to decide what is best for the people they represent.

The representative claim

representation is actively made through claims and only becomes real if others accept it. representation depends on recognition.

elements of the representative claim

maker: actor who puts forward a claim of representation

subject: the figure that is presented as the representative

object: the represented group

audience: those who receive the claim and decide whether to accept it, reject it or ignore it

populism

an ideology in which a leader portrays society as divided between unified, innocent people and a corrupt elite, claiming to embody the people’s will and fight on their behalf.

Do populist leaders represent people?

arguments in favor

• they draw attention to neglected issues, societal groups and viewpoints

• thereby have a corrective role

arguments against

• they construct the people as ‘one’ thereby denying differences in society and politics.

• their idea of their embodiment of people is often authoritarian

populism as anti-politics in representative democracy

rejecting deliberation, legitimacy of different viewpoints, accomodation of minority interests, expertise

often a tendency towards autocratic leadership

attack on institutional politics as such

populist pragmatics

What is done: disruption, performing authenticity while undermining the legitimacy of institutional communication. Exposes politics as staged, highlights gap between elite and citizens.

→ weaker trust in institutions

populist ontology

what is real: constructing representative politics as inauthentic and disconnected from lived experience. representation is replaced with identification: the leader claims not to represent but to be their authentic voice. staging directness, fake reality

populist epistemology

what is true: populists shift evaluation of truth claims by institutional standards of evidence or expertise, to truthfulness of the authentic speaker and claim to shared experience. trust shifts to social media and personal experience instead of experts.

why is authenticity suitable for populists more than other politicians?

• ideology and policies less central to battles for political support

• centralizes individual leaders and their direct relation with voters

• need for recalibration of strategy is presently a key concern for many political parties

social media have become important

• they concentrate public attention

• are primary news sources for many people

• are key spaces for political mobilization

social media companies have a form of domination over citizens

• they regulate what can be said without transparency or accountability

• they shape the visibility of ideas

• they influence how citizens interact politically

neo-republican theory of democracy

freedom = non-domination

quasi-public domination

private actors dominate individuals in their role as citizens

mechanism of domination: speech regulation

direct regulation of speech through content moderation, account suspension, removal of posts

problems:

• decisions not transparent

• standards are contestable

• companies have discretionary authority

result: they can arbitrarily interfere with political speech

mechanism of domination: algorithmic control

indirect regulation of political discourse

algorithms determine

• what content people see

• which voices become visible

• which communities interact

algorithms affect the variety and types of views and ideas citizens are exposed to.

social media as democratizers

easier than before to find like-minded people and build communities with them.

easier to share information, mobilize, coordinate

much less cost

how does representation change?

from collective to connective action:

not joining a movement that has a structure and leadership, but passing on a symbol, accompanied with your own interpretation, and your own expression, to others

• low threshold, so movements can build quickly and include people who would otherwise not easily join movements

• can lead to offline and coordinated collective action, but the foundation is the connecting through ‘micro-acts’

public sphere

a ream where a public opinion can be formed

why is public opinion a basis for governance?

good governance is determined by the public

• ability to deliver - subject to public assessment

• responsiveness - to political will of the public

• accountable to the public

deliberation

careful thought or discussion done in order to make a decision

delibarative model of policy making

public policy is guided by ideas of public interest, based on a true understanding of the world.

political argumentation is the practice to understand relevant norms and values and to sort out the facts as well as the unknowns.

political argumentation should take place in the public sphere, so that everyone who is interested and affected can contribute

characteristcs of a democratic public sphere

• media system: free, plural, not under state control

• access to official information

• political culture of free debate

• voice: equal access to the public sphere

• rights: constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties

mass media and public opinion

mass media as:

informing the public: in general terms and as watchdog

shaping public opinion: the effects of the media

conduit for public opinion: the public speaking through the media

constructing public opinion: media as speaking for the public

site of public deliberation: developing public opinion

media logic

journalists focus on what sells, instead of what matters

civic space

the respect in law, policy and practice for the freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression

freedom of expression

the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, without interference. Right to express opinions, share information and engage in open debate

freedom of association

enables individuals to join groups to pursue common goals

freedom of assembly

allows individuals to gather publicly or privately to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.

civil society

the totality of voluntary social relationships, organizations and institutions that form a basis of a functioning society, as distinct from the power-backed structures of a state or the economic actors of the market.

CSOs in authoritatian contexts

loyal organisations and service providers may flourish and strengthen the regime, while claims-making NGOs are repressed

CSO responses to constraining civic space

• exit/closure/decline

• compliance

• resistance

• navigation

CSO response to constraining civic space: exit, closure, decline

• stopping

• drift away from original mission

• barriers for starting new organisations

compliance

making operations less contentious

making sure to meet requirements

resistance

pushing back against restriction

• lobbying

• building alliances

• mobilizing international pressure

• raising public awareness

navigation

management of relations to protect operational space

• building personal trust with government actors

• seeking a favorable entry point

adaptation of activities to protect their operational space

• management of visibility

• reframing activities

• shifting to less sensitive topics

• working from abroad

science for policy, ideal types

1. provider of evidence for policy

2. informing policy taking a stand providing a truth that may correct politicians’ errors

the policy cycle

identification of something as a problem; understanding the problem

policy development → policy implementation → policy evaluation

science for policy debate paradox

science has high status. policy making often draws on scientific knowledge. but the neutrality of scientific results and the status of science as sources of policymaking are widely challenged.

science functions for policy

• science can inform policy

• science can substantiate policymaker’s pre-existing positions

• legitimizing policymakers and their decisions

solutions for the science-policy gap

1. knowledge brokerage

2. working more closely from the start, learning interactively

advocacy

any non-violent action aimed at pleading, defending, supporting or mobilizing with regard to a right or perspective.

insider strategies

• provision of information-centred analyses, up to full-fledged policy proposals

• lobbying

• dialogue

• support

outsider strategies

• mobilization of public opinion

• overt confrontation

• demonstrations

• sabotage

• litigation

• bad press

• consumer action

advocacy and communication: articulation

• defining a constituency

• presenting you and your organisation as legitimately representing that constituency

• building credibility

• ability to articulate arguments and goals

• ability to sell viewpoint, strategy to constituency

• framing and reframing

constituency engagement

understanding problems, perspectives, workable solutions, developing and maintaining relations

critique on the role of advocacy in democracy

advocacy influence means

• uneven representation

• advocacy takes place through a non-transparent and potentially dirty process

• advocacy means influencing by groups and individuals with an unclear mandate

equity

creating conditions that give as much advantage, consideration or latitude to one party as it is given to another

what can money do?

• agenda setting

• framing of issues or solutions in terms beneficial to a specific interest or viewpoint

• shaping of policy in ways beneficial to an interest or viewpoint

• stopping policy

why would the government listen? perspectives on advocacy group power

• power as key actor in economy

• power to influence public opinion

• financial power to support an office holder

why would the government listen? Perspectives on added value of advocacy

• to be responsive to societal needs and agendas

• to serve constituency

• maintain or strengthen support

• get information

• get social basis for policy acceptance and implementation

why would the government listen? perspectives on roles of actors in policymaking

• pluralism, advocacy groups as representing ‘society’

• corporatism, the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups.

• network governance

madison’s dilemma

if people can’t pursue their interests, they don’t have political freedom.

but if you allow people to advocate whatever they want, interest groups constantly push governments to enact politics that benefit small constituencies at the expense of the general public.

foundations, governments and citizens can strengthen the voice of underrepresented people

• by awareness of uneven representation and seeking even access for societal interests

• by supporting organisations and capacity development for citizens

regulating advocacy

• making it mandatory to report advocacy so the public knows who is trying to influence whom

• making it mandatory to make public what is advocated for

• dis/misinformation policy

agendasetting

influencing what policymakers and other actors see as important, influencing understandings of the nature of problems

legitimacy

a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are proper within some socially constructed system or norms, values and definitions.

why include civil society advocacy in policy processes

• brings knowledge on what is going on ‘on the ground’

• brings innovative solutions

• helps build connections between state and society

• brings in voices that otherwise remain unheard

• acts as watchdog, correcting the state

challenges to legitimacy

• power inequalities within civil society

• not all civil society organisation contribute to inclusiveness

Northern CSOs

are fundermediaries

they manage funding distributed by institutional and private donors in the Global North

• having relations with Global South

• managing risks for the institutional donors

• taking care of the administrative matters

Northern CSOs may offer added value to Southern CSOs

• funding

• access the policymakers in the North

• knowledge

• technical expertise

• supporting the views of Southern CSOs in international arenas

Southern CSOs offer added value to Northern CSOs

• source of knowledge on development realities

• source of legitimacy for Northern CSOs

• role as implementers of programmes

• way to support locally-grown agendas and organizations

the aid chain

institutional donors - (northern) CSOs - southern partners

Northern CSOs face requirements from institutional donors…

• acting in line with their agenda and understanding

• achieving tangible results in a short time

• professional standards of management and reporting

ways the autonomous, representative role of civil society may get compromised

1. CSOs in North and South may move away from transformative ideas

2. CSOs in North and South need to become a certain type of organisation: NGOization

3. mission drift for Southern CSOs has been widely documented

NGOization

shift from informal movements to professional, structural NGOs

efforts to change the system

1. participatory grantmaking: ‘local’ organisations co-decide about funding

2. direct funding: skipping the role of Northern CSOs, rather than financing Southern CSOs directly.

3. drawing more on local funding: cutting dependence

4. reimagining the international NGO

why citizen participation?

1. better problem solution

2. democratic renewal

3. equity

4. ownership

5. democratization

6. more legitimacy for policy and policymakers

7. burden-sharing

invited participation concerns different elements of the policy process

• defining the problem

• development of solutions

• decision making

• implementation/monitoring/adaptation/evaluation

conditions for influence

• support

• willingness to share power

• embedding in policymaking process

• political acceptability of solutions

• budget

arguments for limiting influence

• participation may undermine representative institutions if participation bypasses elected officials

• lack of technical expertise may result in impractical or uninformed suggestions

• participation may dilute accountability by spreading responsbility

• representation issues in citizens participation initiatives.

ways to advance representativeness

• making sure you have a representative aselective sample of citizens

• make sure you have all relevant perspectives and experiences

how can power relations constrain equity in invited participation?

• access to information

• social capital (relations)

• time

• social hierarchies (economic, social status)

• cultural capital (knowledge)

• cultural constraints

empowerment

the process of enhancing an individual’s or group’s capacity to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes

advancing equity through empowerment

• creating space for different forms of citizen participation

• making specific groups’ needs and interests count

• making different forms of knowledge count

deliberation

mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values and interests regarding matters of common concern

deliberative democracy

deliberation as central to democratic process: talk-centred democracy

key elements in deliberative democracy

1. deliberation among people with diverse opinions towards collective decision in which participants are to give reasons for their claims.

2. dd helps common difficulties in democratic policy process

3. forms of added value

citizens’ assembly

group of people who are brought together to learn about and discuss an issue and reach to conclusions about what they think should happen

elements of a citizens’ assembly

• participants selected to reflect wider population

• give participants time and opportunity to learn about the topic

• deliberation is central

• independent facilitators support the process

• conclusions are written up in a report

why would anyone change their opinions?

• discussion can take place on the basis of interest rather than position

• negotiations can be integrative rather than distributive - win-win

• stakeholders can learn and develop new understandings

critiques on deliberative democracy

• risk of elitism - deliberation requires competence and confidence

• can complex policy be made the responsibility of citizens?

• legitimacy of the outcome - small groups is not the ‘demos’

• is consensus seeking always possible or desirable?

• high costs

impacts of citizens’ assemblies

• new directions for policy, based on deliberation

• impact for policy, but uptake by government not a given

• effect on institutions: engagement with ideas, role of citizens and deliberation

• public discourse

• participants’ engagement with the issue, democracy and each other

remit

task given to the assembly

defines what the assembly is allowed to discuss and recommend

needs to be

• timely

• relevant to commisioners and citizens

• responsive to policy context

• acceptable to most stakeholders

• sensitive to constraints of time and money

what happens after the assembly?

governments decide whether to adopt the recommendations and how to implement them

dialogue

a mode of communication that

• build mutuality through the awareness of others

• doing so through the use of genuine or authentic discourse and reliance on the unfolding interaction

similarities between dialogue and deliberation

• to build common ground

• openness and response

• without fixation on a predefined outcome

differences between dialogue and deliberation

• deliberation centres on reason and a mutually acceptable course of action

• dialogue is more on interhuman process; recognizing the other and building relations

dialogue’s difficulties

• we think from our assumptions as given and not to be questioned

• in conflict, we tend to speak in a language that does not easily lead to bridging with others

conditions to reap to full benefits of dialogue

• readiness of the open-endedness of the situation

• reconsider assumptions about the issue

• change relations

• give up control of the process

• consider newly imagined solutions

• acceptance of interdependence and the need to solve the problem

network governance

collaborative model where three or more organizations link together to share resources, information and expertise to achieve common outcomes.

why do we need network governance?

• focus on complex policy problems that cannot be solved by one actor alone, but require the collective actions of several actors

• interdependencies between actors are acknowledged. because resources necessary to solve problems are owned by these different actors

• the interdependencies between actors, having different interests and viewpoints, make interactions strategically complicated and unpredictable.