Page 213 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Globalization and Democracy 199

working for those who support them, whilst avoiding alienating those
who might possibly be persuaded to do so.
As a result, style, appearance, and presentation for the media have
become ever more important to political parties. Indeed, critics of what
has become known as “ political marketing ” argue that a politician ’ s per-
sonality is now more important than party policies. The contemporary
focus on style involves the careful cultivation of “ star quality ” combined
with the appearance of sincerity and trustworthiness. Political parties aim
to produce what John Street calls “ celebrity politicians, ” like Bill Clinton
and Tony Blair, who successfully use techniques of show business (includ-
ing photo - opportunities with stars of entertainment, and appearing on
chat shows) to build their charisma and to infl uence the public. They try
to convey the impression that, although they are special, they are also
ordinary: they are authorized to speak for us because they are like us
(Street, 2004 ). Especially on TV, politicians address audiences intimately,
seeking emotional engagement and identification in order to overcome the

cynicism with which politicians are generally regarded (Corner and Pels,
2003 ; Washbourne, 2010 ).
As a consequence of the decline of networked links with citizens, politi-
cal parties are seeking new ways to build popularity through the media.
John Street suggests that it is too soon to judge the viability of such an
approach. Critics of parties ’ use of public relations techniques tend to
take a rationalist view of how politics should be conducted, and they
misunderstand how it was conducted in the past. Democratic politics has
never involved the rational calculation of interests and needs, and policy
was never designed methodically in utilitarian terms for the best outcome
for the greatest number of people. Politics is always cultural politics: the
manipulation of symbols, the creation of emotional identifi cation, and the
rhetorical production of “ us ” against “ them ” have always been important.
Marketing and style is not new to party politics, even if it is now addressed
a good deal more systematically in relation to the media (Street, 2003 ).
In fact, Street argues, thinking seriously about questions of aesthetics,
and the appearance and style of celebrity politicians should make us think
again about what we understand by representative democracy. How pre-
cisely do politicians in government represent “ we the people ” ? Critics of
the personalization of politics suppose that representation involves “ acting
for ” the represented; they are, therefore, concerned with the capacities
and skills of politicians, including their capacities to respond to people ’ s
demands and needs. However, this understanding of representation cannot
be entirely separated from the appearance of representation: it is always