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