For me it is. We are living in an age when opinion polls and market surveys increasingly determine political agendas and electoral programmes. Our political parties have become marketing organisations on a permanent campaign. And, yet, as noted in the editorial of The Times (June 25) "a good number of politicians are losing their listeners".
How come that, despite the greater use of marketing techniques, the gap between politicians and citizens seems to be widening? The essence of marketing is for enterprises to place consumer wants and needs, at the start, and not just at the end, of the production-consumption process. The "consumer is king" mantra was the way for business to maximise profits. And much of current political behaviour and campaigning style is the political equivalent of the drive for profits at all costs.
Our Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that the democratic process is a process of persuasion. There was a time when this persuasion was driven by ideology, beliefs, values. Today, it is perceived as a crude struggle for power; for personal gain. We have moved from the "politics of conviction" to the "politics of convenience".
In Malta too, more citizens feel disillusioned and are expressing lower confidence in the government and the political class in general. People are tired of persistent spin and fabricated realities. Politicians who ride solely on the corruption, incompetence and dishonesty of their opponents do not help the cause of their class. Also, much of the advertising carried out by the political parties smells of pure, classic propaganda. Behind all the colourful imagery, the message remains the same. The polarisation between the "us" and "them", between the "good" and the "bad."
As the recent referenda on the EU Constitution have shown, citizens in some societies are moving ahead of their politicians. If this is so, then we need more, not less, marketing. And we need an updated version of marketing.
Citizens today have access to expanded sources of information. They want rights not favours. The "floating voters" are being re-defined to include better informed individuals who are highly interested in what is happening around them, while having lower party loyalty. These voters are not impressed by negative campaigning; they want substance and some style.
The danger for political parties is that their effort to lure the "floating voters" will alienate their "core" supporters. A modern branch of marketing emphasises the importance of building a "relationship" with clients. The emphasis is on long-term gain. The implication is that political parties should be careful not to de-energise their grassroots, which will gradually diminish their organisational capacity and limit their capability to mobilise ordinary voters. The good shepherd has to be careful that in the effort to find the lost sheep he will not end up losing the flock.
Relationship, or one-to-one, marketing also underlines the importance of "customisation", that is, giving consumers individual attention rather than treating them as part of a flock.
There have been never-ending arguments as to whether advertising and the mass media simply inform or they actually condition behaviour and consumption. There is little doubt however, that television brought the political debate into our living rooms. For a while we believed that we had all become participants in this debate.
Soon we started to realise it was a one-way discussion; often politicians talking among themselves, largely disconnected from the public. Given the present media fragmentation and cluttering, it is no wonder that face-to-face campaigning remains the most effective way of reaching out to people. There is no substitute for direct communication to remain in touch with the concerns that are of importance to people.
The critical question for a society remains: "At what stage should politicians stop listening and start leading?" To my mind there is no blueprint, no single answer. Politicians have to chart their way depending on the issue and the context. What is important is their unabated commitment to the public good, to national interest. The political class has to earn its legitimisation. It has to strive to win the trust and credibility of the electorate, to be transparent and accountable.
Societies have introduced extensive legislation to protect themselves from rogue trading and unethical marketing practices by business enterprises.
Some advertising is deliberately misleading and can be challenged. Company directors, who are ultimately responsible for employees, capital and other resources, have been made answerable at law for their actions. There is no reason why such legislation should not be extended to regulate political action.
The bond between politics and marketing in our country is strong. It is time that those in our society who wield power and authority, enact policies and influence decisions concerning public life, commit themselves to good governance. Accountability should not remain a cheap electoral slogan. All those who market blatant lies that mislead citizens should not be allowed to go scot-free. This in the very interest of democracy and the political class itself.
fms18@maltanet.net