Has Power in Politics changed hands?

The penetration of the PR practitioners in political world was a result of the implementation of marketing techniques in politics. In democracies saturated by the media and in societies dominated by the image, communication consultants became necessary for the career evolution of politicians. Although professional marketing in politics is not something new, this is not completely approved by everyone. Many people nowadays seem to believe that PR in politics-often called as ‘spin’-has transferred  power from politicians to their communication experts. But how much does this perception reflects reality?

This week I attended a debate organised by Trevor Morris, our visiting professor of Public Relations in the University of Westminster. The motion discussed in the debate was that ‘PR and spin have undermined trust in politics’. The attendees were challenged to decide, whether political PR has caused distrust in politics or if it is just the PR critics’ fault, who unfairly target the messengers. Some interesting opinions were heard by the participants of the debate for and against this motion and I must admit that although before the debate I was somehow prejudged that ‘spin’ was to blame for the public’s distrust in politics, at the end I was feeling quite confused. Several thoughts crossed my mind while I was listening to the speakers from both sides. So far, it seemed I had more proofs that spin indeed had harmed politics, but this perception was challenged in my mind.

Were the communication experts responsible for the political actions? Clearly, the messengers of each government are not the ones to make the political decisions, like financial cuts or going to war. Political communicators are responsible of how these messages, that the government needs to communicate, will be delivered to the public. We cannot blame communication consultants for trying to build their news agenda in such a way so that they are being proactive instead of reactive. After all, that is their job; what they were hired for.

 



Source of the image: Google



On the other hand, it is true that some practitioners involved in political PR, use manipulative techniques in order to prevent criticism for those they represent or to persuade people in favour of political actions. However, these  techniques are being consciously supported by politicians themselves. Aren’t they aware of what their spin-doctors suggest? Of course they are; as it is also those who promised people to govern fairly and not their communication consultants. Yet politicians themselves use spin as well in their public speeches. I cannot simply accept that they are just puppets or preys in the hands of spin-doctors.

In some countries it also happens that journalists and corporate or state media allow news stories that are favourable to the government, while avoid serious criticisms against it. This proves that spin exists in every profession and this distrust in politics is the result of a chain reaction from a series of factors. Spin appears in many aspects of our everyday lives; many individuals choose to give their own perspective of things, using sometimes unfair techniques to convince their interlocutor in favour or against an opinion. It seems that it is up to each individual’s morality how he will act in his personal and professional relations. The point is how acceptable this behaviour will be by various stakeholders. Transparency in politics needs to come first from the top, meaning the politicians and the public needs to challenge the information that receives from each side and not simply digest whatever is served to them.

Activism & NGOs in the PR sphere

Environmental and consumer issues, that arose in the recent era, and the high skepticism as a characteristic of the post-modern societies has led to the formation of activists groups. Of course freedom of expression as one of the democratic values has offered a fruitful environment for the development of activism as well. These groups are formed by people who have become aware of an issue or problem and are being organised to do something about it, trying at the same time to influence with their actions other publics.

Corporations and NGOs have both welcomed a growth during the last years partly because of the globalisation; however these organizations are of a very different type and have different agendas. The conflicting dynamic interactions between them shape partly the society we live in.

One of the greatest challenges that PR practitioners working in corporations face nowadays, is the reconciliation between the corporation’s interests and the demands by pressure groups.

On the other hand, let’s not forget that many PR practitioners are employed by activist organizations as well. PR practitioners working in NGOs have a clear vision and it is more simple for them to define objectives than their colleagues working in corporations. They deliver campaigns to force corporations meet legal requirements and social expectations. When the legitimacy of a corporation is undermined, the name of the brand and its market value could be harmed or it could even have a negative impact on its relationships with key stakeholders, such as employees or customers. The impact of pressure groups’ activity can be greater on the corporation when government and the media are involved.

The Edelman Trust Barometer for 2011 showed that people trusted NGOs by 5% more than they trusted business. Corporations have realized that for the wellbeing of their business it is necessary to monitor these publics and their perceptions towards the corporation. Corporate PR started being more proactive than reactive. Consequently issues management has become very important.

Corporations and NGOs have started to develop collaborations, under the assumption that this would be beneficial to both organizations. However there are some issues that occur from that collaboration such as transparency and integrity. Providing to NGOs sensitive corporate information could be quite risky for the wellbeing of a corporation and that raises the question in what extent the corporation is willing to reveal such information. On the other hand media coverage over this collaboration could harm the legitimacy of the NGO and people might start doubting for the integrity of its members. Before implementing an NGO-Corporation collaboration as a tactic to resolve conflicts, PR practitioners from both sides should rethink the consequences that this could have on their organisation and consider that it might backfire.