Audience Democracy in Sweden




Audience Democracy in Sweden –
the Influence of Social Democracy and New Media


Introduction

This essay is a try to describe the possible moving towards an audience democracy in present-day Sweden, pointing out what shows similarities to other Western European states, and what might stand out within the notions of party- and audience democracies. For this short research paper my research question is simply:

Has representative democracy in Sweden turned into audience democracy, or not?

In order to reach an answer in my conclusion I have used the following structure. Firstly, I will summarize Bernard Manin’s original writing on the definition of “audience democracy”, as so many others have in the study on the concept (See Ahlbäck Öberg and Mair for example). Secondly, I will move to the Swedish case in two sections: firstly, a short overlook on the meaning of social democracy in Swedish 20th century politics, and secondly, a look on today’s Sweden in the context of audience democracy. Thirdly, I will focus on the importance of (new) media in politics today, both in Sweden and abroad.
Lastly, my conclusion will summarize and tie the essay together. I have mentioned a few assumptions based on the content of the paper.


Manin’s definition of Audience democracy

Before the 1970’s political preferences could be explained by the social, economic and cultural status of the voters. The last quarter of the 20th century, however, has seen a “personalization of electoral choice”, whereby the individuality of the candidates decides how the electoral votes, and not a party or a platform. The old system of political groups still plays an important role as in forming a network for the leader; it becomes a tool for him or her to gain power. Manin hereby describes this new type of democracy, the audience democracy, as the natural continuation of (Parliamentarism and) Party democracy (218-219, 235).
The present political situation seems to have two causes. Firstly, the channels of political communication have changed; media enables politicians to communicate directly with citizens without the former necessary mediation of the party platform. Secondly, in the latter half of the 20th century, the democratic governments have had less power over for example economy than before, giving that the party, or now, the individual politician, has less control over social life of the citizens, and therefore is not able to make detailed promises and keep them. The complexity and interdependency of contemporary economy makes such assumptions for the future more difficult to form (Ibid. 220).
The liberalization of society and the individualization of politicians change the voting behaviour of the people in the same manner; the number of “floating voters”, who do not base their ballot on stable party identification (or class-, social-, or cultural identities) is increasing. The contemporary floating voter stays well informed, is interested in politics and educated (Ibid. 222, 231-232). Thus, Manin sums up:

“Voters seem to respond (to particular terms offered at each election), rather than just express (their social and cultural identities). In this regard, the present situation marks a departure from the formation of political preferences in party democracy. Today, the reactive dimension of voting predominates.(222)”    

The individual politician must not only present himself to the floating voter, but also present a difference, the opposition, in order to mobilize the supporters. In the party democracy the election turnout is easy to predict in terms of the voters’ loyalty to their party. In the audience democracy, however, those cleavages defined by culture and social identity are “numerous, cross-cutting and rapidly changing”. The electoral is then capable of a number of splits. The candidates must then decide which potential splits are the most convenient and useful to mobilize voters according to these newly defined cleavage lines. These new features for the individual politician can be referred to as “political entrepreneurship”; when candidates are competing with each other in order to win votes (Ibid. 222-226).
These new political notions are by Manin described with the metaphor of a stage and the audience, leading to the sum-up defining the very term of this new system:

“Thus, the electorate appears, above all, as an audience which responds to the terms that have been presented on the political stage. Hence, this form of representative government is called here “audience democracy.”(223)” 


The role of Social Democracy

The past seven and a half years (October 2006 -) is the longest Sweden has ever gone without a Social Democratic government since the 1920’s. The liberal-right coalition “The Alliance” (Alliansen) has held power with Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt as its head, since the 2006 elections (they won in 2010 as well) (Regeringen). However, for most of the 20th century clear Social Democratic hegemony could be distinguished. The continuous Social Democratic governments of 44 years between 1932 and 1976 established a well functioning system in the Swedish society, bringing it closer to an egalitarian country than any other western state has ever been, during the 1970’s. The welfare system, the neo-corporatist economy and close ties between the party and the worker’s unions; together with the continuity of governments kept the labour hegemony present even during years out of government (Tsarouhas 5-6, 12).
During the last 20 years or so, notions of hegemonic theories of Swedish Social Democracy have been debated. Even though the party won its power back, after three years of liberal-right government in the 1994 elections, the ongoing financial crisis, together with the European and global influence on economy, brought forward liberal-socialist policies with less ties to the union movements (Ibid. 12-13). Worth noting though is that the Social Democrats in Sweden was still the biggest party in the 2006 and 2010 elections, but did not manage to form a coalition big enough to prevail Alliansen, or to regain its former glory (Oscarsson and Holmberg 2).        
Three tendencies connecting social democracy in Sweden with party democracy as described by Manin can be seen. Firstly, together with the backdrop of the social democratic party one could easily draw the conclusion, based on statistics, that the voter volatility increases simultaneously (Oscarsson and Holmberg 5-7). Secondly, following other Western European states, the volatility became higher in the 1990’s. However, while most other countries (with the exception of Italy and the Netherlands) had experienced high voter volatility before, Sweden did not reach its high levels until the last decade of the 20th century, that is, when the liberal-right won in 1991 (Mair 38-40, Oscarsson and Holmberg, 5,7). Thirdly, in traditional social democracies, such as Sweden, voters tend to vote for and have trust in “the party” and not individual candidates, proving the point that Party Democracy is more based on class divisions, than audience democracy (Manin 209-210). Thus, shortly, Social Democracy in Sweden has meant an ongoing stability in party politics; subsequently, moving away from this hegemony show tendencies towards audience democracy.


Contemporary Swedish (audience) democracy

In Ahlbäck Öberg’s article she focuses on the increase in turnover of MP:s in the Parliament (Riksdagen), since the mid 1990’s. This can partly be describes by the change of the length of the political term from three to four years, theoretically giving that the whole parliament could be replaced within nine years (the corresponding event in the 1970’s would be 13 years). Also the longer term has given that fewer politicians fulfil the whole four years. However, the more relevant explanation for the tumult in the Parliament lies in the floating voters and the emergence of the new political entrepreneur. The new MP:s then are less experiences than before, only two out of three fulfil the full term, making the political atmosphere within the Parliament perhaps more “shallow” as described as one of the features of an outspoken audience democracy (5).
The article is based on a study of interviews with the MP:s that have left their post prematurely. The author concludes that the study of the quitters, and not the sitting MP:s, show an important turn in Swedish contemporary politics. By studying the motivation for leaving, the article pinpoints how the role of the Swedish politician has changed in the past 15-20 years (Ibid. 5-6).
The interviews show a clear division; it is not a left-right split, however, but one dividing age and experience. The study was conducted between 1994 and 2000 and the interviewees were divided into three age groups: 30 or younger, 31-50, and 51 and older. The division could clearly be seen between the two younger groups, as fitting into the frame as the political entrepreneur, and the oldest, as that of the loyal party member. Not surprisingly, the refraining from their positions of the +51 group was mostly due to retirement, usually after a longer term as MP:s. The youngest group were clearly individual politicians in the sense that they did not want to blend into the “grey party mass”, without being seen. The involvement and the own identity is crucial in their view of a politician; when losing them, the political engagement as an MP becomes uninteresting for the young politician. The middle group (aged 31-50) generally did not mind to “blend in”, but can still be defined as political entrepreneurs according to Ahlbäck Öberg, in the sense that most of them saw their political engagement in the Parliament as a side path in their career, and not necessarily the main goal of wanted success (Ibid. 6-8).
Thus, the notion of the political entrepreneur, as shown with the rapid changes in Parliament constellations, is very present in Swedish politics today, as one of many tenancies in an audience democracy. The split between the view on the MP:s between old and young politicians can be translated as the difference between the party- and the audience democracies; the established politician as the loyal party member above all, and the young as the political individual with his or her own agenda.       
Drawing from the audience democracy as described by Manin, contemporary Sweden suits the model very well. Paired with descriptions of present democracies are often statistics about low turnouts in elections. This particular feature, however, cannot be seen in the Swedish case.
Even though the turnout numbers have dropped slightly since the 1970’s, they are still higher than in most other European Countries. In the two previous elections of 2006 and 2010, the turnouts were 82,0% and 84,6% respectively. Sweden (together with Denmark) was the only country in Western Europe to have its lowest post WWII-turnouts during the 1950’s, whereas other states reached their bottom during the 1990’s or later. (Mair 35, 37; Oscarsson and Holmberg 2). The Swedes also seem to be generally politically interested and active. Even among the citizens defining themselves as “Not at all interested [in politics]” the turnout at the elections is still fairly high (59% in 2006, 63% in 2010). Voting in Sweden is not obligatory, yet the feeling of being obliged to vote seems to be very present among the Swedish citizens (Oscarsson and Holmberg 4, 10).     


The media perspective

Bernard Manin (and others basing writings on his work) defined the importance of Media in the audience democracy during the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. With rapid changes the notion of new media (internet-based media or social media) has increased its importance within politics and democracy only during the last 10-15 years.
Manin stipulates that today’s politicians are elected on the basis of “image”, being a combination of the party orientation of the politician and his or her own agenda. In contrast to voting on detailed political proposals (in party democracy presented by the party), the conception of the political image becomes a simplified representation. The effect is then that the presentation of candidates in political campaigns becomes that of competing images, the easy-access way of electing candidates. The risk is then that a successful, image-based, campaign might bring a politician to office, but the commitment might be vague in comparison to former promises (226-228).
Contemporary media are politically neutral, insofar as they are not structurally linked to parties or organizations as media in a party democracy. The new communication between the politician and the people, gives that all individuals potentially are receiving the same information. This enables the individual to form his or her opinion, based on the divergent positions being exposed on a given issue. However, this also gives the individual (floating) voter a responsibility in being well informed and interested, in order to vote for the suitable candidate. The cleavage in the audience democracy might not be solely based on class identities anymore; the emerging new elite – the informed floating voter – is gaining power. The “media-expert” has replaced the political activist and the party bureaucrat (Ibid. 220, 228-233).
Nilsson and Carlsson’s article outlines the perceived role of internet-based media among Swedish politicians. They explain the same tendencies as in traditional media; the political neutrality, communication with voters and the importance of the image-based identity of the individual politician. However, they stipulate one crucial difference, that of the immediate two-way communication between the politician and the voter (1-2). Similar to the article by Ahlbäck Öberg described above, there was a cleavage between the interviewees, but it was not based on party differences. Unlike the divisions between different age groups in the rapid changes of MP:s, the new media perspective instead divide between those who see themselves as “progressive and modern” politicians being active on social media, and those who are restricted, finding the focus on online debates with voters artificial. (Ibid. 3-11).
Nevertheless, close to all the interviewed politicians agreed on the importance of being visible online, whether the actual online two-way communication was relevant in the political sphere, or not. Critical voices on the social media mentioned the balance of trying to be modern on one hand, participating in social networking, and restricted on the other hand, not using new media too extensively in order to jeopardize the credibility of being a “real” politician (Ibid. 11). Another interviewed politician, very positive to new media, however, uttered the words:

“ It’s more  important to deliver a sharp message, if you want to be noticed, (…) if you are invisible in the media, you are absolutely nothing (Ibid. 10)”             

The importance of new media in society is based on the socio-economic necessity of online information among Swedes. Access to internet became a part of everyday life significantly earlier than in other countries; more than half of the Swedes had gained access before the millennium. In 2011 the number of Swedes using the internet occasionally reached almost 95%, a number that in practice cannot reach higher (Findahl 8, 50).   
The new media works in the same manners as the traditional; it keeps up the same cleavages between the elite media users and the uninformed. The common Swedish example here is Twitter, where the number of users among young educated citizens is around 30%, whilst the number among the average citizen is around 4%. Twitter is to a large extent used by politicians, journalist and other celebrities; compared to for example Facebook where the percentage of users is around 65% (Findahl 4,6).
Thus, drawing from the work of Nilsson and Carlsson, one could conclude that the new media and its importance within democracy is a logic continuation of the audience democracy described by Manin and others during the late 1990’s and the early 21st century. The new media notion and that of audience democracy show the same tendencies to a large extent.
However, moving to the second decade of the millennium, one additional, yet important and stressed feature may be added to the media perspective of democracy, namely that of rapid two-way communication between the politician and the voters. Even though some of the interviewed politicians viewed this communication as superficial and shallow, most of them could not deny its importance in today’s political sphere.





Conclusion

The prospect of this essay is to outline the concept of audience democracy as described by Bernard Manin, as well as describing the trends and situations of such a development in the Swedish case. The results of this essay are identified in the following bullet points:

·         Social democratic hegemony has kept a stability in the party democracy until the early 1990’s
·         Early internet access has moved towards new media and its notions of two-way political communication between voters and politicians
·         High voter turnout in recent elections, not following the overall Western European trend of decline
·         The Swedish tendencies of audience democracy presented (many MP:s in a short time and visibility online), are not defined according to party lines, but are questions of generations

So, has representative democracy in Sweden then turned into audience democracy, or not? Indeed, most of the features of a described audience democracy are present in today’s Sweden. Nonetheless, in comparison to other Western European countries two differing trends are specifically worth mentioning: the early internet usage of the average citizen and the high turnout and interest in recent elections.
A hasty and blindfolded conclusion of only this essay is of course irrelevant, yet interesting: If the Social Democratic hegemony was present in Sweden until the 1990’s, and the new media was emerging just a few years later, is it possible that the party democratic grip of the voters was held until the two-way communication of the new media came into everyday life? Then this new way of interacting with politicians more directly, possibly boosted political interest and kept the high turnouts in elections. Is it possible that Sweden skipped the “old-fashioned” way of audience democracy?
Obviously, new media is audience democracy. All features lined out by Manin are still present today, maybe even to a larger extent than 20 years ago. Even though some Swedish politicians in Nilsson and Carlsson’s study consider the online-politics to have gone too far, no one can deny its influence. The Arab Spring and now Turkey (in the opposite, negative manner) prove that internet politics is a democratic right of the 2010’s. In fact, as everything else within the technology area moves in a very high speed, it might even be possible to depict a new type of democracy following audience democracy, based on the internet, in a foreseeable future.

As a less speculative conclusion, Manin himself sums up the chapter on audience democracy, better and more honest, and very true in the Swedish case, as follows:

“Representative government remains what it has been since its foundation, namely governance of elites distinguished from the bulk of citizens by social standing, way of life, and education. What we are witnessing today is nothing more than the rise of a new elite and the decline of another (232)”





Bibliography

Ahlbäck Öberg, Shirin. ”På väg mot Publikdemokrati” Framtider 2/2009. Institutet för framtidsstudier. 2009. [“Towards Audience Democracy”, “Futures, no. 2, 2009”, “The Institute for Future Studies” My translation.]

Findahl, Olle. ”Swedes and the Internet 2012”. .SE-internetstatistik. 2012. (https://www.iis.se/docs/Swedes-and-the-Internet-2012.pdf)

Manin, Bernard. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge University Press. 1997.

Mair Peter. “Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy.” New Left Review, vol. 42. November/December 2006: 25-51.

Nilsson, Bo and Eric Carlsson “Swedish politicians and new media: Democracy, identity and populism in a digital discourse.” New Media & Society. Sage Publications. 2013: 1-17.

Oscarsson, Henrik and Sören Holmberg. “Swedish Voting Behavior - Report 2011:4.” Swedish National Election Studies Program, University of Gothenburg. 2011.
Tsarouhas, Dimitris. Social Democracy in Sweden: The Threat from a Globalized World. Tauris Academic Studies. 2008.
















No comments:

Post a Comment