Public sphere, public opinion formation, and direct democracy
1
Book reviews 63 Public sphere, public opinion formation, and direct democracy Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung und direkte Demokratie – Eine Fallstudie zur Verfassungsreform in Liechtenstein. F. Marcinkowski, W. Marxer. Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, 47. Verlag der Liechtensteinischen Akademischen Gesellschaft (2010) In the preface to this case study on the controversial constitu- tional reform of the principality of Liechtenstein in 2003, Frank Marcinkowski, professor of communication science at the West- fälische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster, addresses the both long and difficult formation of this publication. For almost a decade, Frank Marcinkowski and co-author Wilfried Marxer, research director at the Liechtenstein Institut, examined both the distinct media system of the microstate Liechtenstein and the related pro- cess of public opinion formation in the context of direct democratic popular vote. Their initially intended comparative approach across a num- ber of policy fields, however, was modified and delayed mainly due to the disputed constitutional reform dominating the domes- tic political agenda from 2000 to 2003. Thus, Marcinkowski’s and Marxer’s research became both a very detailed analysis of a fac- tual plebiscite in a microstate and an impressive as well as topical account on public sphere, public opinion formation and democracy in general. The publication of this examination is divided into seven chap- ters completed by useful appendices and a list of references. While the first introduces the subject and the relevant complex of research questions, the second chapter provides the theoretical foundations and concepts for an empirical assessment of political communica- tion and public opinion formation. In order to examine the latter in the socio-political context of the small state of Liechtenstein, the third chapter depicts the distinct institutional and socio-cultural framework of political and public communication. Chapter four constitutes the first empirical unit describing the political process of the disputed constitutional reform. The fifth chapter analyses the development of the political actors’ communication and fram- ing strategies whereas the following section is then devoted to public reception and individual opinion formation. The concluding chapter summarises the core results and discusses related implica- tions. On 16 March 2003, two referenda – one initiated by the Liecht- enstein dynasty and one by 202 citizens of the principality – faced each other. After a very high percentage of the eligible voters, namely 87.7 per cent, went to cast a vote that day, 64.3 per cent endorsed the sovereign’s proposal for a constitutional amendment whereas only 16.6 per cent approved the motion of the initiative committee. According to Marcinkowski and Marxer, this electoral decision was highly predisposed. The pronounced faith in the monarchy and, at the same time, a noticeable reservation about politics – party politics in particular – combined with a prevalent societal value orientation, such as patriotism, conservatism and authoritar- ianism, predetermined the individual voting. Neither political nor public communication was able to change the persisting political attitudes among the majority. This phenomenon cannot simply be attributed to voters’ avoidance of public communication, quite the contrary, the available channels of information and forums were intensely used. The people of Liechtenstein were indeed exposed to the arguments of both sides. Nevertheless, by strategically applying the concepts of framing and priming, the campaign of the dynasty successfully managed to activate underlying societal and cultural values as well as the semantic and visual fear of losing the societal, political and, of course, the material status quo arguably guaranteed by the monarchy. In their further analysis of electoral behaviour, Marcinkowski and Marxer noticed a remarkable pattern: the victory of the sovereign’s campaign was mainly due to the wide approval of sections of the population with lower or moderate political com- petence and at the expense of the population group with higher formal training, strong political interest, intense media use and higher factual knowledge. Thus, the case study of the publicly disputed constitutional reform and related political campaign and public communication in the small state of Liechtenstein perfectly illustrates the prob- lematic connection between the public and direct democracy in a media society in general: apparently, people do not vote on a def- inite draft bill, but on what they consider to be the essence of the problem; issue-related rational arguments remain widely unheard and ineffective. Hence, the public appearance of factual issues and their construction and framing in political and public communica- tion respectively are crucial in a direct democracy. This requires a functioning democratic public, which, in turn, is most notably com- prised of independent media as political correctives able to set an alternative agenda. This extensive though accessible research by Frank Marcinkowski and Wilfried Marxer not only constitutes a sig- nificant contribution to the existing literature on public sphere, public opinion formation, and direct democracy, but also an introductory and illustrative read reaching beyond an academic audience. Christian L. Glossner Université de Fribourg, Switzerland E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2012.06.015 Cinema in Svizzera Cinéma Suisse. Une politique culturelle en action: l’Etat, les professionnels, les publics. Autore: Olivier Moeschler. Editore: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Anno: 2011. Luogo di edizione: Lausanne Il libro di Olivier Moeschler indaga le politiche culturali adottate dalla Confederazione Elvetica nell’ambito del cinema, prenden- done in esame la gestazione, i contenuti, le implicazioni pratiche, le critiche ricevute e le rivisitazioni. L’analisi viene condotta collo- cando l’oggetto di studio all’interno di un triangolo che lo stesso autore definisce “infernale”, e ai cui vertici troviamo: lo Stato, i professionisti del cinema ed il pubblico. La rilevanza del testo è molteplice. Da una parte, come denun- cia Moeschler, la politica culturale della Confederazione è sempre rimasta una zona grigia all’interno della quale pochi ricercatori si sono avventurati. Ciò consente di riconoscere all’autore del volume il merito di aver condotto una non facile azione di ricerca, al contempo intraprendente, originale e accurata. Dall’altra il tema affrontato, ovvero la difficoltà di adottare delle politiche per il cin- ema, accomuna la Svizzera a molti altri paesi europei (e agli stessi organismi comunitari), che da decenni tentano, non senza difficoltà e sollevando costanti critiche, di difendere, sostenere o rilanciare
-
Upload
christian-l -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of Public sphere, public opinion formation, and direct democracy
P
ÖEM4(
ItMfaFdmcp
bdtMtai
ttqatttfcotipct
eenewc
C
CpP2
Iddlc
Book reviews 63
ublic sphere, public opinion formation, and direct democracy
ffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung und direkte Demokratie –ine Fallstudie zur Verfassungsreform in Liechtenstein. F.arcinkowski, W. Marxer. Liechtenstein Politische Schriften,
7. Verlag der Liechtensteinischen Akademischen Gesellschaft2010)
n the preface to this case study on the controversial constitu-ional reform of the principality of Liechtenstein in 2003, Frank
arcinkowski, professor of communication science at the West-älische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster, addresses the both longnd difficult formation of this publication. For almost a decade,rank Marcinkowski and co-author Wilfried Marxer, researchirector at the Liechtenstein Institut, examined both the distinctedia system of the microstate Liechtenstein and the related pro-
ess of public opinion formation in the context of direct democraticopular vote.
Their initially intended comparative approach across a num-er of policy fields, however, was modified and delayed mainlyue to the disputed constitutional reform dominating the domes-ic political agenda from 2000 to 2003. Thus, Marcinkowski’s and
arxer’s research became both a very detailed analysis of a fac-ual plebiscite in a microstate and an impressive as well as topicalccount on public sphere, public opinion formation and democracyn general.
The publication of this examination is divided into seven chap-ers completed by useful appendices and a list of references. Whilehe first introduces the subject and the relevant complex of researchuestions, the second chapter provides the theoretical foundationsnd concepts for an empirical assessment of political communica-ion and public opinion formation. In order to examine the latter inhe socio-political context of the small state of Liechtenstein, thehird chapter depicts the distinct institutional and socio-culturalramework of political and public communication. Chapter fouronstitutes the first empirical unit describing the political processf the disputed constitutional reform. The fifth chapter analyseshe development of the political actors’ communication and fram-ng strategies whereas the following section is then devoted toublic reception and individual opinion formation. The concludinghapter summarises the core results and discusses related implica-ions.
On 16 March 2003, two referenda – one initiated by the Liecht-nstein dynasty and one by 202 citizens of the principality – facedach other. After a very high percentage of the eligible voters,amely 87.7 per cent, went to cast a vote that day, 64.3 per centndorsed the sovereign’s proposal for a constitutional amendmenthereas only 16.6 per cent approved the motion of the initiative
ommittee.
According to Marcinkowski and Marxer, this electoral decisionwas highly predisposed. The pronounced faith in the monarchyand, at the same time, a noticeable reservation about politics –party politics in particular – combined with a prevalent societalvalue orientation, such as patriotism, conservatism and authoritar-ianism, predetermined the individual voting. Neither political norpublic communication was able to change the persisting politicalattitudes among the majority. This phenomenon cannot simply beattributed to voters’ avoidance of public communication, quite thecontrary, the available channels of information and forums wereintensely used. The people of Liechtenstein were indeed exposed tothe arguments of both sides. Nevertheless, by strategically applyingthe concepts of framing and priming, the campaign of the dynastysuccessfully managed to activate underlying societal and culturalvalues as well as the semantic and visual fear of losing the societal,political and, of course, the material status quo arguably guaranteedby the monarchy.
In their further analysis of electoral behaviour, Marcinkowskiand Marxer noticed a remarkable pattern: the victory of thesovereign’s campaign was mainly due to the wide approval ofsections of the population with lower or moderate political com-petence and at the expense of the population group with higherformal training, strong political interest, intense media use andhigher factual knowledge.
Thus, the case study of the publicly disputed constitutionalreform and related political campaign and public communicationin the small state of Liechtenstein perfectly illustrates the prob-lematic connection between the public and direct democracy in amedia society in general: apparently, people do not vote on a def-inite draft bill, but on what they consider to be the essence of theproblem; issue-related rational arguments remain widely unheardand ineffective. Hence, the public appearance of factual issues andtheir construction and framing in political and public communica-tion respectively are crucial in a direct democracy. This requires afunctioning democratic public, which, in turn, is most notably com-prised of independent media as political correctives able to set analternative agenda.
This extensive though accessible research by FrankMarcinkowski and Wilfried Marxer not only constitutes a sig-nificant contribution to the existing literature on public sphere,public opinion formation, and direct democracy, but also anintroductory and illustrative read reaching beyond an academicaudience.
Christian L. GlossnerUniversité de Fribourg, Switzerland
E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2012.06.015
inema in Svizzera
inéma Suisse. Une politique culturelle en action: l’Etat, lesrofessionnels, les publics. Autore: Olivier Moeschler. Editore:resses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Anno:011. Luogo di edizione: Lausanne
l libro di Olivier Moeschler indaga le politiche culturali adottate
autore definisce “infernale”, e ai cui vertici troviamo: lo Stato,i professionisti del cinema ed il pubblico.
La rilevanza del testo è molteplice. Da una parte, come denun-cia Moeschler, la politica culturale della Confederazione è semprerimasta una zona grigia all’interno della quale pochi ricercatorisi sono avventurati. Ciò consente di riconoscere all’autore delvolume il merito di aver condotto una non facile azione di ricerca,al contempo intraprendente, originale e accurata. Dall’altra il tema
alla Confederazione Elvetica nell’ambito del cinema, prenden-one in esame la gestazione, i contenuti, le implicazioni pratiche,
e critiche ricevute e le rivisitazioni. L’analisi viene condotta collo-ando l’oggetto di studio all’interno di un triangolo che lo stesso
affrontato, ovvero la difficoltà di adottare delle politiche per il cin-
ema, accomuna la Svizzera a molti altri paesi europei (e agli stessiorganismi comunitari), che da decenni tentano, non senza difficoltàe sollevando costanti critiche, di difendere, sostenere o rilanciare
