Abstract
There are two key contexts in which the term ‘personalisation of election campaigns’ occurs: the role of a leader and direct communication with voters. Although the influence of candidates is a phenomenon that has long been studied by political science, the degree of influence of personal communication has not been explored extensively even though the two are closely related. This article describes both aspects of personalisation with respect to the way they are employed in different kinds of election campaign in the Czech Republic.
Introduction
The beginning of 2013 saw the first direct presidential election in the history of the Czech Republic, an election which had the greatest inherent impact from personalisation.
Even basic definitions reflect the interconnection of the two aspects: we can understand personalisation as the strategy of emphasising personality or as the technology that makes the strategy effective. In both cases we speak about personalisation in campaigning.
But personalisation does not have to be studied only in the context of election campaigns. It has also been studied as a part of political communication by Hájek (2012). Surprisingly, personalisation in this field was increasing but not as much as Hájek had expected.
Mancini and Swanson (1996, 11) commented that personalisation is ‘the more general, pervasive, and fundamental element in the process of change of electoral campaigns’. Such a process is linked with the technological communication possibilities that make closer interaction between the voter and the candidate possible. The beginning of the trend is often linked with television broadcasting and the US presidential debates in the 1960s. Simply put, candidates were able to speak to voters personally in the 1960s through television and radio, and now, 50 years later, are able to use the Internet and social networks. The change that took place in these 50 years was huge: communication (McQuail 1999) approximated from a one-to-all to a one-to-one model. Some authors question the empirical proof of the personalisation of politics.
Bearing in mind the different conclusions concerning the degree of personalisation, which bring debates about this subject to life it has to be pointed out that it is not the purpose of this article to engage in this sort of polemic. I work on the presumption that personalisation–-including in the context of this year's first direct presidential election in the history of the Czech Republic–-does influence Czech campaigns and political communication, and I will demonstrate the way in which it does so.
The role of leaders in election campaigns
In addition to topicality, personalisation is one of the cornerstones of every campaign. It is inbuilt in all its parts, and it undoubtedly influences not only the observable aspects of the campaign but also its overall strategy. There are several recent studies examining the ways in which increased personalisation influences campaigns and how they are perceived by the voters. Most often, the influence of personalisation is linked with the perception of the political parties’ brands or the ideologies the parties represent. Such an image can be positively modified by an emphasis on personalisation, but it can also be quite a risky strategy, because, if your leader fails, your whole campaign is threatened.
The basic positive effect of personalisation in the elections last year was commented on by blogger Šíma (2012):
It is true that in the Czech Republic, candidates appearing on billboards are still perceived as something inappropriate, and they often become objects of ridicule and jokes; on the other hand, we react more intensively to a person than to an amorphous entity of a political party. Although political reality is slightly different, the reception of a statement saying ‘I will reconstruct our roads’ is more intense than if we read ‘We will reconstruct our roads’. It is because we are not sure what ‘we’ stands for. The promises will not be kept anyway, but it is more convincing for the voters.
The important role of personalisation was illustrated in the last election to the Chamber of Deputies in 2010. The results of this election show the crucial role of personalities, especially in those newly established parties that managed to cross the threshold of 5% of the votes. Most preferential votes were won by Karel Schwarzenberg. It is worth noting that the second most successful politician, Michal Hašek from the Social Democratic Party, did not get even 55% of Schwarzenberg's preferential votes. The year 2010 saw a much more extensive use of preferential votes, which was connected with a lower threshold for the change of order on the candidate lists: 5% of the votes was enough to change the order, and this was accompanied by an extensive ‘preferential voting’ campaign promoting the use of preferential votes as a form of protest. Although this activity undoubtedly influenced personalisation in a positive way, in my opinion it is a result of the decreasing trust in politics–-which has been a long-term tendency. From the point of view of sociology and political science, it is a crucial long-term negative tendency, which could (despite the growing influence of personalisation) result in the election of a populist party. We can say that through the strengthening of personalisation there can be wider space for political movements or parties without a clear political programme or with a programme based only on populist ideas. Of course these political parties or movements usually dissolve soon after elections, but they can complicate the political situation throughout the term too.
The presidential election in 2013
The beginning of 2013 saw the first direct presidential election in Czech history. It should be mentioned that studies by sociologists and political scientists analysing the 2013 presidential election are being drafted at the moment; thus the sources used for the purpose of this article are statistics of election results and the research by the research centre STEM (Středisko empických výzkumů) describing the election. It was STEM (2013b) that confirmed that, ‘according to Czech citizens, the presidential election was not so much about the struggle between the left and the right, but rather about a competition between personalities’.
As both candidates who got to the second round have a background in political parties–-Karel Schwarzenberg is the president of the conservative TOP 09 (Tradice, Odpovědnost, Prosperita; Tradition, Responsibility, Prosperity) party, which is a member of the ruling coalition, and Miloš Zeman is the honorary chairman of the leftist Party of Civic Rights, Zeman's People (Strana Práv Občanů ZEMANOVCI, SPOZ)–-it is interesting to see how this undoubtedly personal election influenced their popularity and subsequently the popularity of the parties associated with them. This influence occurred despite the fact that neither of the campaigns of these candidates were linked to their parties’ brands.
Even just a month before the first round, none of the polling agencies projected that Karel Schwarzenberg would advance to the final round. It was the long-standing favourite of the election Jan Fischer who was expected to get to there. A December poll by STEM (2012) showed Fischer winning 25.6% of the vote; Zeman, 17.2%; and Karel Schwarzenberg coming fifth with 6.1%. Jan Fischer, the head of the 2009–10 caretaker cabinet, came third in the first round, winning 16.35% of the vote. Political and campaigning commentators often mentioned aspects connected to personalisation as the reason for his failure. Jan Fischer faced a negative campaign focused on his inability to decide and his uncertain positions on campaign issues. During television debates (he was invited as one of the possible winners), he was not able to convince voters he was a real leader for the country. Briefly, Karel Schwarzenberg and Milos Zeman even briefly demonstrated more charisma in their campaigns than him. It was often mentioned that the association of Karel Schwarzenberg with the politics of TOP 09, the upholder of reforms in the current government, would have a negative impact on his popularity. The election results (Karel Schwarzenberg advanced to the second round with 23.4% of the votes, and the current president, Miloš Zeman, won 24.21%) illustrate that personalisation can overshadow some negative aspects of candidates’ profiles, and that, as a result of personalisation, Karel Schwarzenberg's participation in the government was not the main topic of the election debates despite the attempts by his competitors to strengthen the connection between Schwarzenberg and the unpopular government. For many voters, Schwarzenberg's governmental political activities were less relevant because they perceived the campaign as a competition between personalities.
It is noteworthy that Schwarzenberg's personalisation was strengthened by the huge number of supportive statements made by many celebrities in Czech society.
The positive influence of personalisation on presidential campaigning for political parties
Polls by STEM (2013a) and the Public Opinion Research Centre (CWM 2013) published shortly after the presidential election show that the election results significantly influenced the popularity of both parties associated with the candidates. TOP 09 broke its record from 2010 and became the most popular right-wing party, leaving behind the Civic Democrats, the party that had previously dominated the polls. The results for TOP 09 were 50% better than those in a poll published in January. Although we can only speculate about how long lasting this effect might be, we cannot ignore the fact that a similar effect could be observed for SPOZ, which is not represented in the Chamber of Deputies but which, according to some sociologists, has a chance of succeeding in the elections in 2014.
The risks of personalisation
Local elections
The counterproductive effects of personalisation can show in the context of certain election systems. For example, in the elections to Czech local governments, it is possible to select only certain candidates from the list. The voters do not necessarily have to vote for the complete candidate list as it is. They can make their own choice of candidates and mark them, having as many votes as there are seats to be filled. If it so happens that personalisation does not focus on the leader of the candidate list, it can result in the voters selecting individuals instead of supporting the whole candidate list, thus giving the party fewer votes (choosing the entire candidate list results in the maximum number of votes for that party: every voter has the same number of votes as the number of people who will be elected).
Regional elections
Among the Czech authors dealing with personalisation are, for example, Brtník and Havlík, who studied its effect in the election in the South Moravian region in 2008. A study they published concludes that:
on the municipal level, the success of political parties is more prominent if their candidate list contains a locally eminent personality with a bond to the place, especially if such a personality is around the top of the candidate list;
on the municipal level, the losses of political parties are heavier if their candidate list does not contain a locally eminent personality with a bond to the place, or if such a personality is not around the top of the candidate list;
the effect of locally eminent personalities can be partially substituted by a personality of regional importance, typically the region's governor (Brtník and Havlík 2009).
An analysis of personalities and the number of preferential votes showed there was also a causal link in 2012, when the same type of election took place; it was not the most outstanding characteristic of the election, though.
Presidential election
I would also like to highlight two critical phenomena mentioned by Kriesi (2012, 825): ‘a stronger focus on candidates/politicians instead of parties, institutions, or issues; and a change in the criteria for the evaluation of politicians, from features regarding their professional competence and performance to features concerning non-political personality traits’. For example, during the presidential election, the role of the wives of the main candidates was often mentioned. We saw on one side Zeman's wife, unknown to the public, and on the other Schwarzenberg's wife, who cannot speak Czech fluently. These facts were used to show that neither of the candidates was suitable for the position of president.
The recent criticism of personalisation has been summed up by Brettschneider (2008): ‘Yet the personalization of election campaigns receives the bulk of criticism. Some observers see in it a dangerous trend toward depoliticization. Politics, according to them, is increasingly meaningless, issues are marginalized, and elections are turned into mere beauty contests, designed by spin doctors who are practically “packaging” their candidates for the media’. The increasing importance of leaders can compromise the whole political party and have an underlying influence on the campaign and the results of the elections. It is much easier to explain the policy of the party through a personal story from the leader, but when he becomes untrustworthy it is nearly impossible to replace his influence by emphasising the political programme. Maybe it is a more complicated method of access to voters, but emphasis of the party brand should never be neglected.
A long-term strategy based on personalisation that does care enough for the building of the brand can destabilise a party. It is a natural thing that chairs, eminent personalities and even party presidents leave, although such events are very challenging for organisations. We should recall the turmoil in the Christian Democratic Party after the departure of its president, Josef Lux, and the situation in the Civic Democratic Party after Václav Klaus, its founder and president, left. There is also speculation regarding the future fates of newly established parties founded by eminent personalities. What are the parties going to be like when their founders are gone? Such changes are being studied by a number of political scientists, but it remains true that such a situation can be made even more demanding if there is strong emphasis on personalisation in the political communication of the party as a whole.
As mentioned, it was due to the immense impact of personalisation that the presidential candidates’ families and backgrounds were commented on, and that this information was used in a ruthless, negative campaign to an extent never before witnessed in the Czech Republic. I point this out because it is not a custom in the Czech Republic for a politician to be accompanied by his or her spouse, for instance, and it is unusual for candidates’ families to participate in election campaigns.
Target groups or individual communication?
The increasing influence of personalisation as witnessed in election campaigns is growing even more with the new possibilities created in advertising, and especially online. So far we have talked about one strategy of personalisation, but the Internet and information technologies (for example, social networks) can influence personalisation and move it to the next level of personalised communication. This influence on the elections in 2010 was described, for example, by Štědroň et al. (2011), as the conflict between ‘new and old’ media.
What is the definition of a personalised campaign? The Killercampaigning website (2009) puts it in a very straightforward manner:
You make each voter feel that you actually sat down and took the time to pay attention to them personally. There are many different effective ways to personalize your campaign, from writing a message on every door card, to calling the voters directly on the phone, to knocking on every door in your district and introducing yourself to your constituents.
Mindshare, a transnational advertising agency, published a commentary on its web pages, which emphasises the role of the individual approach, especially in online advertising: ‘Please, do notice that I am talking about individuals–-not target groups. That is probably the most profound change we have to make to our way of thinking. In the world of personalised advertising we will no longer work with typical representatives of target groups but with unique individuals who are different from everybody else’ (Mindshare n.d.). Are we really getting to the stage of communication pictured in the film Minority Report, in which the main character is receiving individualised purchase offers as he walks through a shopping mall? Looking at the effectiveness and the price of direct advertising, we can see that this trend is bound to continue; after all, clients buying online advertising want concrete results, and they are looking for a form that will secure them.
McAllister (2005) comments on the influence of the electronic media:
Explanations for the personalisation of politics vary, but one that is often advanced is the growth of the electronic media and its consequences for politics, particularly in the conduct of national elections … The electronic media have been seen as crucial in shaping the way that governments communicate with voters and seek to convert them; at the same time, party leaders have exploited their exposure in the electronic media in order to attract votes.
The way we are targeting our campaigns nowadays is undoubtedly much more precise–-and much more changeable. Every topic and every problem can have its target group, which can be precisely defined on the base of socio-demographic parameters. Precise targeting yields a substantially higher success rate for the reception of the information offered; it also generates much more valuable feedback. All this can be said in the light of the last US presidential election, in which there was an increase of thousands of percentage points (5,833% according to Mashable 2012) in the financial means allocated for a relatively dated communication tool, email. During the summer of 2012, TOP 09 asked its members and supporters to answer a questionnaire designed to improve the targeting of communication and to generate relevant groups for future internal sociological polls.
The primary finding was that the party's members and supporters do not perceive the providing of personal data as problematic–-if they can control the data and understand the purpose of their collection. The very first results showed that targeting a group of respondents, the people who are strongly interested in a given area, yielded a double success rate in measurable outcomes of providing such information. In some cases, the success rate even tripled. Hand in hand with this went a decrease in the number of recipients who refused such information or found it useless, and who unsubscribed as a result. Feedback analyses, then, help discover precise rules relevant for different groups, the use of which can in turn lead to a further increase in effectiveness. It is analysis that is at the heart of tools of implementation; without continuous analysis, the increases in the effectiveness of communication can be only random.
Conclusion
Personalisation is a part of every campaign strategy, and although its influence is gradually getting stronger, it should not be employed haphazardly, without a thorough analysis of the initial situation.
Personalisation naturally became an aspect of the presidential election although the voters could have chosen other decision-making criteria in this first direct presidential election in Czech history. It proved this type of election depends mainly on emotions, especially in the first round. The results of the presidential election were mirrored in the increased popularity and better-projected results of the TOP 09 and SPOZ parties, which were associated with the two final-round candidates.
Although the influence of personalities, strengthened by technological possibilities, is important, it cannot be assumed that it will significantly marginalise other campaign aspects, such as topics and programme. However, without a strong personality it is much more difficult to engage supporters or to organise events through social networks. In this respect, the role played by leaders and personalities is immensely significant and cannot be disregarded by modern election campaigns. Thanks to modern technology, key messages can be delivered to a precisely defined target group; technology also allows individual communication, which mostly replicates the image created by the media. The media image is what still matters a great deal; despite the Internet being so commonly used, there is a large proportion of voters whose primary source of information, and thus their political preferences, is television. The situation in this area is bound to change, but it is not going to be a matter of it changing in the next few parliamentary elections.
Footnotes