Page 36 - The Professionalisation of Political Communication Chaning Media, Changing Europe Volume 3

Political Communication.qxd 12/7/06 7:30 pm Page 33
Political Communication.qxd 5/1/07 15:05 Page 35

THE PROFESSIONALISATION OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN EUROPE | 33

Our task, then, is to identify and account for that process of change but, at the same
time, to be more precise about the aspects of organisations that are becoming
professionalised. In other words, rather than seeing all contemporary practices as
underpinning a process of professionalisation, we explore the socio-political contexts
within which different practices and different experts come to be used in specific
organisations to achieve specific objectives. In our case, the objective of winning
political power and using that power to achieve political goals.

HOW SHOULD PROFESSIONALISM AND PROFESSIONALISATION BE ANALYSED?
If, as has been argued, the word professionalisation is most likely to refer to a process of
change, it is a process of change that, either explicitly or implicitly, brings about a
different and more efficient organisation of resources and skills in order to achieve
desired objectives. It suggests a higher stage or a development of – or an improvement
on – what went on before.This could be in relation to the operation of communication
facilities (a more skilful use of television),campaigning techniques (better use of polling
data or better targeting of voters, for example), the re-organisation of political parties
themselves (as in centralisation), the re-organisation of government communication
systems (as in the creation of a centralised communication directorate to co-ordinate
publicity) and even in respect of media-politics relations (as in news management
techniques).

But one area in which there has been extensive consideration given to some of these
issues is in relation to political parties and the ways in which they have changed in
response to a number of factors, including the challenge on new communication
technologies and changing campaigning practices. As Maggie Scammell has
suggested, one can identify two ‘senses in which modern “professionalisation” is
claimed to be qualitatively different (from the past):specialisation and displacement.’

n Specialisation ‘is largely driven by technology and, of course, the money to hire the
expertise. This is partly a quantitative argument, which is saying roughly, that the
degree of specialisation has accumulated to the point where campaigns
qualitatively become altered’(1998,p.256).
n With displacement,‘party strategists have been displaced by non-party ‘professional’ The Professionalisation of Political Communication in Europe
strategists. Employed at first for their expertise with the technologies (arising from
specialisation), the professionals become increasingly central to campaign strategy
and even policy-making’ (1998, p. 256). This too has an impact on the conduct of
campaigns, although it also has a wider impact on political parties themselves.With
the professionalisation of the political communication process, ‘experts’ take over
tasks that were formerly accomplished by party members under circumstances in
which the ideological profile of any political party has decreased quite significantly,
or is continually decreasing in line with the objectives of the professionals/experts. 35