To what extent do politicians lead public opinion in modern times? Is public opinion taking the upper hand over politicians in Malta’s present-day democratic environment?
In this age of spin, the electorate is fed an increasing dose of pap. Every day, it becomes harder for ideas and proposals to obtain widespread currency without the help of sound bites and clichés.
This is because technological advance and the information revolution have broken down the political models of yesteryear by atomising society.
Not many decades ago, political arguments flowered in stimulating oratory in Parliament, and in hours of oratory in lecture halls, clubs and at political meetings attended by hundreds of people at a time. All this has been reduced to a few television sound bites beamed into the living room.
In former days, the print media enjoyed the role of watchdog of the public interest and was accorded the status of Fourth Estate. It is no longer so. Among journalists nowadays, there is more pressure to come up with sensational stories. There is far less hesitancy to print speculative ones.
In a section of the old-fashioned press there has grown unscrupulousness, a propensity to give credence to rumours, a reluctance to correct and apologise, and amnesia about last week’s leading article or front-page splash.
No doubt, this may well sell newspapers. It also sells the readers short.
To make matters worse, some journalists interpret the freedom of the press as a licence to place their profession above morality, if not also above the law. They spin stories revolving round unnamed “sources”, and take liberties by manipulating “leaks” whose origin is not only concealed, but is also protected by the rules of “confidence”.
On the other hand, television has brought immediacy to reporting, and much greater awareness of events. It has introduced politicians to the family household, warts and all.
Television has become the instant medium – but its emphasis is on brevity, which leads to trivialisation. The viewer is restricted to the range of vision of the camera eye, and actuality is reduced to the cameraman’s focus, when it is not also distorted.
How could a prospective political leader fare in a world in which the media is more interested in the trivial, the sensational and the scandalous, and, in which, every political pronouncement is reduced to one or two sound bites?
And how could public opinion react in this developing situation?
In Malta, the problem confronting politicians was “solved”, in its own peculiar way, when the major political parties set up their own television and radio stations.
On their part, televiewers, listeners as well as individual newspaper readers have to guide themselves by the star of their good sense. This predicament might explain, in part, why the so-called floating vote is growing larger.
This developing situation poses problems to political leaders and their respective party machines.
Where once prime ministers and politicians led opinion, now, too often, they have to find out what can lead them to electoral success. .
The atomisation of modern democratic society handicaps political leaders who now have less physical contact with the electorate, and who must now rely increasingly on opinion polls and interactive broadcasts with public participation. The Internet is offering new possibilities for communication
On balance, political leaders and their party machines are more hard-pressed today than yesteryear. Now, they have to contest populist movements and sentiments that try to invade their turf.
In this climate, enterprising newspapers with no ties to any political chariot can manifestly make headway as they pump fresh air in the forum of Maltese public opinion.
It is the enlightened, independent-minded floating voter who is thus gaining the ascendancy, and who is, therefore, demanding to be treated with far more respect than in the past.
Come the next election, this factor will herald significant change.
[email protected]