This is the time of technocrats leading countries out of difficult times. It is a temporary phase until politicians once again take over the helm and try to woo voters with their ability to propose economic solutions that promote prosperity. But style, substance and spin compete in the quest of winning support from an increasingly sceptical electorate.
A party in opposition is unlikely to divulge details of its plans until the last moments before an electoral test- John Cassar White
Political parties supporting distressed governments often accuse opposition parties that they do not really have alternative plans to turn around the fortunes of a stagnating economy. A few days before the financial markets forced Silvio Berlusconi to resign, he solemnly declared that he would not resign as the opposition had no alternative solutions to Italy’s economic problems.
In Spain the Socialist Party in government accused the then opposition leader Mariano Rajoy that he was indulging in “calculated ambiguity” by presenting an electoral manifesto that was “long on intentions and short on specifics”.
The reality is that a party in opposition is unlikely to divulge details of its plans until the last moments before an electoral test lest its plans are either “stolen” or rubbished by the party in government. One can argue that this amounts to political opportunism, while others, no less convincingly, believe that political pragmatism is hardly a weakness in postmodern politics. What businessmen would willingly reveal his business plan to his competitors simply to be complemented for the substance of his plans?
What is more relevant in today’s political dialectic is the ability of political leaders to communicate with the electorate. Since the Kennedy-Nixon debates of the 1960s, modern politics has been defined by the importance of communication, especially televised communication. Jonathan Koppell, writing in the Los Angeles Times in 2000 claimed that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt would never make it to the White House today because of television. “People would reject them as preachy, awkward, whiny, ugly, boring or some combination thereof.”
Style over substance has been replaced by style as substance in postmodern politics. The credibility of political leaders is often determined on how effectively they convince the electorate that they are more trustworthy then their adversaries. If it is proven that political adversaries at some time deceived the electorate by resorting to spin or promises that they knew they could not keep, the public’s trust in them will be shaken with devastating consequences for their electoral prospects.
They will of course don the mantle of statesmanship and argue that they are not prepared to take populist measures at the cost of ruing the economy.
For instance, this is the daunting challenge facing the Liberal Democratic leader in the UK. Having promised to eliminate university fees for students, he actually had to agree to an increase in fees as part of the austerity package adopted by the Conservative-Liberal coalition. Nick Clegg has definitely damaged his credibility by dumping his promise to students.
Spin doctors engaged by political parties use various tools to manipulate public opinion especially through television programmes. In a media-saturated democracy the manipulation of the electorate is inevitable. Political candidates will accuse one another of spin and lack of substance while they all claim that they are more worthy of the electorate’s trusts because they are the ones proposing substance in their political programmes. Technocrats and pseudo technocrats are roped in to confirm a particular leader’s substantial proposal, only to be contradicted by other technocrats who have not so latent different political sympathies.
But the law of political gravity cannot be eliminated even by the shrewdest spin doctors. Leaders who fail to meet the expectations of their electorate are likely to be pushed aside in the next electorate test. Even if a political leader reminds his voters that they are really much better off than they think or when compared to citizens of other countries, what really counts are the expectations of voters. In politics what matters are perceptions because for most people perceptions are reality.
Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy may indeed have substantial solutions for the euro crisis, but the negative perception of a large part of their electorate is keeping them from arguably adopting the right solutions to resolve this serious problem. So they resort to spin dressed by in elegant political style to give the impression that they are really tackling the eurozone crisis effectively.
The only time that substance in politics prevails over spin is after an election when the next electoral test is safely distant.
jcassarwhite@yahoo.com