Political communication, democracy

The relationship between political communication and democratization became a topic of discussion after a minister touched upon the subject recently. How are the two related? Sociologist Ignas Kleden addresses the question in this first of two articles.

JAKARTA (JP): It is not easy to establish the relationship between political communication and a more democratic political life. The difficulty is that one must first figure out what makes up democracy. Also, between political communication and democracy there seems to be no causal-functional relationship, whereby one affects the function of the other.

At first glance one could assume that political communication is necessary to promote a more democratic life. To a certain extent this is reasonable considering that democracy consists of a politically and constitutionally arranged communication. If plurality is a minimum prerequisite for democracy, the plurality becomes beneficial to a society not only because of different views but because the interaction between these different political standpoints will eventually result in a better situation.

Theoretically, a view which comes out of the interaction of opposing stands and whose production involves many people is assumed to be more acceptable. Needless to say, the interaction presupposes an effective communication. One opinion confronts another and it is hoped that the confrontation will bring about a view which combines the best elements of the conflicting views.

In that sense, we can talk about political communication as a prerequisite for democracy because the workings of plurality depend not on its sheer existence, but on what actually takes place between various ways of looking at things.

Without the interaction and the dynamic interplay between those different views, the plurality is there, but it resembles a sort of physical entropy. An energy is available but it is not active and cannot be activated, and thereby contributes nothing to its environment.

However, to compare physical and chemical interactions with social interaction is a risky venture.

In the first case we are talking about natural interaction which works according to natural laws. In the second we are dealing with social interaction, which entails free choice and the voluntary aspect of human nature.

In political communication, there are even more preconditions which should be considered, such as technical, social, personal and political conditions.

This includes Indonesian politics, the priorities of political programs, the urgency of political problems and the viability of political expression.

All these things are expected and required from professional politicians like cabinet ministers, political parties and House of Representatives members as well as political observers.

Personality will also facilitate or hinder interaction with other persons. In that sense, a friendly and talkative person by nature has more opportunity to come into contact with other persons than a reserved, taciturn type. However, this very general rule has exceptions. A talkative and friendly type who breaks his or her promises will lose friends sooner than a quiet one who keeps his word.

All the above traits are more important in the realm of politics, where one's acts and words can be examined and contested publicly. In that sense, the integrity of a politician is subject to public acceptance or rejection.

Such is the case with most public figures. The Indonesian poet and playwright W.S. Rendra once said that he may on occasion have been dishonest with his mother or wife, but he cannot deceive his public, just like a writer cannot deceive his readers.

The question is not whether or not a politician can cheat his constituents, but whether or not deceptive communication can exist between a politician and his or her public.

Window: In political communication, there are even more preconditions which should be considered, such as technical, social, personal and political conditions.