Page 37 - The Professionalisation of Political Communication Chaning Media, Changing Europe Volume 3

Political Communication.qxd 5/1/07 15:05 Page 36
Political Communication.qxd 12/7/06 7:30 pm Page 34

34 | THE PROFESSIONALISM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

Of these two senses of the word, it is the latter – displacement – that has come in for
greater academic scrutiny and, usually, within a broader analysis of changes in the
nature and organisation of political parties themselves. For example, some of the
political science literature makes a distinction between the nature, purpose and
organisational structure of the traditional ‘mass party’ and the nature, purpose and
organisational structure of the more contemporary ‘catch-all party’ (Kirchheimar, 1966),
or of the ‘electoral-professional party’ (Panebianco, 1982; see also Mair, 1998).
Simplifying the argument somewhat, in the former, traditional party bureaucrats are
essentially in control of the party, whereas in the latter, professionals (pollsters,
marketing specialists, consultants, media advisers) drawn from outside have come to
locate key positions, often ‘replacing party leaders in key campaign roles’ (Sabato, 1981,
p.7).

In a recent paper, and drawing on the Italian experience, Mancini has also made the
distinction between an era in which party bureaucrats mobilised and administered
election campaigns and one in which a ‘culture of marketing’has established itself at the
centre of a party organisation with marketing specialists offering both executive and
4
strategic support to the running of election campaigns (2002). (See also Lees-
Marshment, 2001; and Farrell & Webb, 2002.) The political party then becomes little more
than an organisation permanently oriented towards electoral contests; it ceases to be a
policy-making forum as those functions are increasingly the preserve of party elites.

There can be little doubt that professionals from outside of political parties have come
to play an important role in the conduct of elections (see Plasser & Plasser,2002; Sabato,
1981;Thurber & Nelson, 2000), but these sorts of changes can perhaps only make sense
in the context of the development of political parties themselves (and the extent to
The Professionalisation of Political Communication
which different communication and political systems can give rise to the employment
5
or use of different specialists or communication practices ).To deal only or mainly with
communication and election related changes (e.g. hiring of consultants/ professionals)
independently of other changes is not only to privilege them but also to minimise the
importance of these other changes. Political parties are no different from other
organisations in which change has taken place. In fact, what they have in common with
other organisations is the belief that change – in structures, procedures, and personnel
– may create an organisation that is better suited to deal with immediate problems and
objectives.A change of party leader, for example, usually has momentous repercussions
for the political party: new structures are usually created, new personnel are brought in
(and old ones removed), new policies are developed, new lines of responsibility are
established, and so on. All of this happens because of the belief that the change will
create a better organisation (and one that also reflects the new leader’s views on what
that should be like and its likelihood of success).

Changes in the makeup of political parties therefore come about for a whole series of
reasons and those reasons are much more complex than either technological forces
36