Democratization in Political Communication
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929920924930 |
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920924930
Political Studies Review
2021, Vol. 19(4) 607 –623
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929920924930
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Democratization in Political
Communication
Rubén Sánchez Medero
Abstract
Disintermediation allows citizens to directly access political communication. The greater diversity
of interactions between political actors results in increased flow of information. This causes
decreased effectiveness for gatekeepers and agenda-setters (old media), and makes way for the
creation of a deregulated, non-hierarchical, and borderless space, resulting in the empowerment
of citizens and the democratization of political communication. This is a modernizing time that
affects the development of political process and the role of different political actors. However,
this transformation is shaped by bias and structural factors that limit its universalization and, a
priori, encourage the emergence of a citizen elite that is capable of managing and benefiting from
change.
Keywords
political communication, disintermediation, democratization, citizenship, mediatization, political
actors
Accepted: 16 April 2020
New Playground
In recent decades, developments in political communication have led to a high rate of
change in politics. Disintermediation and deregulation have led to a modernization of
political communication channels (Parisi and Rega, 2011; Tasente, 2014), which has
resulted in clearing signs that the political market has overcome the “era of mediation”
(Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995; Blumler and Kavanagh, 1999; Mazzoleni and Schulz,
1999; Meyer, 2002). Non-conventional channels (primarily information and communica-
tions technology (ICT) and social networks) have allowed citizens to directly influence
the development of political communication, a space which is traditionally represented
by the triangle made up of leaders, media, and the public (Brants and Voltmer, 2011;
McNair, 2003; Perloff, 2013).
These new channels have created a new “playground,” that is, a more deregulated
political market, which has increased production and exchange of information between
Department of Social Sciences, Fac. CCSSJJ, University Carlos III of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Corresponding author:
Rubén Sánchez Medero, Department of Social Sciences, Fac. CCSSJJ, University Carlos III of Madrid, C/
Madrid 126, 28903 Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Email: rsmedero@polsoc.uc3m.es
924930PSW0010.1177/1478929920924930Political Studies ReviewSánchez Medero
research-article2020
Article
608 Political Studies Review 19(4)
different political actors (Chadwick, 2006). This has distorted the framework which tra-
ditionally regulated political communication. Citizens do not act as observers or receiv-
ers, but rather as other players (Habermas, 2006). Because of the participatory focus of
this changed role, we can see this as part of a process of democratization. In making this
observation, we can also link changes in political communication to a range of factors
that underlie any phenomenon of this nature: the influence of economic development,
organizational capacity, empowerment, access to political participation, and so on
(Beetham, 1994; Coppedge, 2012; Dahl, 2006; Linz and Stepan, 1996; Rustow, 1999,
inter alia).
The ability for a large number of citizens to enjoy direct access to the space in which
political communication occurs is an important achievement for the new phase. However,
this has not been the case from a qualitative point of view (Hindman, 2008; Van Deursen
and Van Dijk, 2014). The influence of communication on new media and digital media is
accompanied by a series of biases (Chadwick, 2006; Norris, 2001; Prior, 2007; Van Deursen
and Van Dijk, 2014; Wei and Hindman, 2011), known by some authors as the OMA
(Opportunity, Motivation, Ability) frameworks (see Dimitrova et al., 2011), which hinder
the emancipation and empowerment of citizens. One bias stands out from the others: the
dependence upon education for the politically correct use of these tools (Anduiza et al.,
2010; Dimitrova et al., 2011). Sophistication is a requirement which coincides, at least in
part, with one of the most determining factors of any political democratization process
(Finkel et al., 2007). Dependence upon sophistication could lead to the creation of a citizen
elite capable of organizing and managing this new space for participation.
Political Communication: A New Age
The space of political communication has been functionally connected to a triangle made
up of politicians, press, and citizens (Brants and Voltmer, 2011; McNair, 2003; Perloff,
2013). The nodal actors remain the same in this space for exchanging information and
messages, although their coverage has been progressively extended with the achievement
of universal suffrage and the appearance and incorporation of all kinds of political actors.
This is an inclusive process, which has resulted in the incorporation of practically all
actors that take part in politics. As in the case of the political process, however, the role
played in this space by different actors is determined by their capacities.
The trajectory through which these changes have occurred, with its easily identifiable
milestones, has allowed different authors to identify a series of stages in the evolution of
political communication. This is a dynamic process in which the centrality of information
technology and social networks in communication is an important novelty, as well as a
distorting factor, that facilitates the identification of a series of characteristics that dif-
ferentiate this period from others. The new participatory role of citizens, the inclusive
nature of these tools, the changes that occur in this space, and all the actors involved in
the political process permit the identification of this stage as a democratizing one. This
identification mainly responds to the transitions through which it has developed.
Specifically, the transition from the stage of media coverage of political communication
to a more participatory one, whose immutable characteristics cannot yet be clearly
defined, but which is easily recognizable as a series of transformations through which it
can be clearly identified and differentiated.
The democratization of political communication starts from the crystallization of “the
Third Age” described by Blumler and Kavanagh (1999). The start of this period can be
To continue reading
Request your trial