In the latest blog from our Legislatures in Uncertain Times conference, Anikka Weerasinghe and Graeme Ramshaw discuss the work of communications professionals within the UK Parliament.
Politics is a complicated business and the communications landscape in Westminster accurately reflects this complexity. At last count, the UK Parliament had over 60 corporate social media accounts spread across channels including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. Most UK parliamentarians Tweet, as do hundreds of staff employed by them, by the political parties and by Parliament.
The constant news feed generated by the Press Gallery, and the debates, reports, evidence, questions and statements that make up the bulk of parliamentary business also adds to the communications landscape—and all of this activity excludes the Government communications machine. Yet despite the immense efforts to communicate with the electorate, satisfaction with the UK Parliament remains low and has been on a steady downward decline.
The causes of this declining democratic satisfaction are complex and not unique to the UK. Academics have dedicated considerable effort trying to distil the root causes of democratic decline and identify potential solutions of this international trend (Norris: 2011; Inglehart: 2016; Pharr et al: 2000). Yet despite the ubiquity of political communication from Westminster, it is perhaps surprising that institutional communications interventions are not afforded much attention in this debate. A new research collaboration between the House of Commons and Westminster Foundation for Democracy seeks to contribute to this discussion by considering the communication strategies, objectives and tactics delivered by UK Parliament in order to better understand how parliamentary communicators are fighting declining democratic satisfaction. This project also aims to contribute to the handful of studies that consider the role of parliamentary communications as distinct from partisan political communication. The communications professionals interviewed as part of this research are impartial parliamentary employees, serving the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or both Houses equally. They are experts in a range of disciplines, from media relations to digital communication and public engagement. While it is too soon to draw any firm conclusions, one theme has already emerged—all communicators are acutely aware of the importance of their work and the significant challenges they face in today’s post-truth, low-trust era.
A fledgling field of inquiry: parliamentary communications
While the discipline of political communication should provide the ideal framework in which to ground this research, political communication literature has historically focused on the messages and mediation of political content by elites and parties rather than the messages communicated by impartial officials on behalf of political institutions. While an emerging field of political communication examines the communications conducted by government institutions, the communication conducted by parliamentary institutions, still remains largely absent (Sanders and Canel, 2013: 1).
Part of the difficulty in establishing a valid framework is ontological. Defining parliamentary communications remains a challenge—even for those working within the field. Parliamentary communication and parliamentary engagement are often used synonymously, both encompassing a range of activities from traditional corporate communications disciplines such as media relations and marketing, to newer forms of communications such as digital media and more participatory practices such as face-to-face public workshops, exhibitions or tours (Walker: 2017: 2). For these purposes, the definition of parliamentary communications is built on Cornelissen’s definition of corporate communications as “a management function that offers a framework for the effective coordination of all internal and external communication with the overall purpose of establishing and maintaining favourable reputations with stakeholder groups upon which the organization is dependent,” (Cornellissen: 2010:5) Thus parliamentary communication can be described as the framework under which all of the institution’s communications is organised, and with a primary strategic objective of building a positive reputation with its citizens through a variety of communications tactics that support parliament’s core functions and build public trust, legitimacy and encourage engagement. To this end, communications initiatives that support transparency, publicity, and two-way dialogue will be core to any modern parliament’s communication strategy.
However, unlike corporate communications, parliamentary communications shares features and constraints that are similar to communicating in government. Research suggests that in government, serving the public impartially and working within a highly political environment can lead to short-termism, less innovation and more cautious decision-making given the intense scrutiny of work. These features are also familiar to parliamentary practitioners, yet in this context impartiality takes on a different meaning. Government communicators are required to be non-partisan and impartial by serving the government of the day. The narratives and messages they deliver are driven by the government’s agenda. By contrast, communicators in Parliament must balance competing narratives and priorities of legislators from all political parties and independents represented. This can constrain or frustrate clear communications positions, and requires considerably more stakeholder management than is seen in other organisations. Additionally, while government communications objectives include announcing policy decisions, encouraging citizen engagement and behaviour change in areas of government policy, this is not necessarily true of parliaments.
Rather, parliamentary communicators seek to communicate the work of the institution and influence citizens’ behaviour by encouraging them to participate in the legislative process through activities to support of their scrutiny function, communicators may actually work against the government’s agenda. For example, by asking the public to submit evidence to a committee, encouraging them to seek representation from their elected representative on a matter of concern, or by encouraging the submission of petitions, parliamentary communicators seek to encourage citizen participation regardless of the government’s agenda.
Case study: UK Parliament
The UK Parliament is one of many legislatures internationally that has prioritised its external communications activity in recent years by increasing and diversifying the way that the public can learn about, and interact with, its work. Yet, the public does not generally distinguish between Parliament and Government, let alone between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Separate bodies govern the two Houses and they work to deliver different corporate strategies. They report to different political masters, and while they can work together in areas of mutual interest, their day-to-day communications objectives are not necessarily consistent. Within each House, select committees, each powerful in their own right, also command their own communications space and operate largely independently in order to effectively react to the news of the day. Separate teams, committees, and departments that jointly serve the institutions of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and their members further complicate the picture. The complex institutional landscape brings unique corporate communication challenges that are common in other parliaments.
In the vast majority of public and private organisations, including government departments, the sources of authority are more clearly delineated than in parliaments—the UK Parliament being no exception. Reporting to a Chief Executive, a Chairman or a board of trustees is often the extent of a communicators challenge. In parliaments, the lines of authority are much more diffuse. Like in other organisations, major corporate and strategic decisions are made at board level, yet in parliaments, these boards often take the form of committees made up of different politicians from different political parties. “Members are not a coherent group, and there are many of them. Trying to communicate on behalf of all of them makes the task of messaging much more complicated,” said one official. In this environment, securing consensus on issues that may be politically sensitive can be incredibly challenging for corporate communicators used to developing and delivering clear messages.
Democratic apathy or atrophy?
The most recent Hansard Society Audit revealed that only 7% of the public surveyed acknowledged that they follow a UK parliamentary social media account, yet providing information via social media was seen as the second most desirable way for Parliament to communicate with the public (Hansard Society: 2017: 32).
Unfortunately, there is some evidence to suggest that the public is simply not all that interested in engaging with Parliament, with fewer than half of those surveyed by the Audit reporting a desire to be involved in local or national decision-making. The Audit’s findings support the wider international trends that indicate that satisfaction, trust and engagement with democratic institutions is declining, particularly in long-established democracies such as the US and UK. What is particularly troubling for professionals tasked with trying to reverse this decline, is that the literature suggests that exogenous social, cultural and structural factors may be the cause. Studies suggest that electoral outcomes, the type of parliamentary system, an individual’s demography, and a country’s overall economic prosperity can all affect democratic satisfaction, yet these factors reside outside the control of parliamentary officials tasked with improving these metrics (Curini: 2011; van der Meer: 2010; Heath et al.: 2013). While some officials interviewed acknowledged that there is a limit to the extent they should expect the public’s behaviour or satisfaction to change, there is little consensus among practitioners as to how best to direct their limited resources to improve outcomes. More evidence is needed to support officials to make informed decisions about where to focus activities that will best serve the public. While gloomy in its outlook, this is not to say that parliamentary institutions should be reticent in the way in which they conduct their work. The Audit also notes the majority of the population (73%) believe parliament is vital to democracy and as the central democratic institution of the nation, parliaments contribute to the health of a country’s democracy. While there are worrying trends of declining satisfaction, the progress made in the past decade has been transformative.
Notes
Anikka Weerasinghe was the Deputy Director of Communications at the House of Commons when this blog was written. Follow Anikka on Twitter: @AMWeerasinghe
Graeme Ramshaw is the Director of Research and Evaluation at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Follow Graeme on Twitter: @BN7WFD