politics strategy comm

7/24/2019 Politics Strategy Comm

1/18

Three Case Studies from Switzerland:Plca Pal Cmmcaon the InternetBy Richard Staeuber and Urs Gasser

Internet & Democracy Case Study Series

at Harvard University

MARCH 2009Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2009-03.2


2/18

>> 2

ABSTRACTIn recent years, Swiss politicians have increasingly turned to the Internet as amethod to communicate with constituents and as a way to humanize their publicpersonas. Tis case study examines the use of Internet communication by Moritz

Leuenbergerone of Switzerlands Federal Councillorsand Christoph Blocher,a former Federal Councillor. Tis case evaluates the relative success and failure oftheir efforts, and provides a tentative assessment of how this method of politicalcommunication might contribute to democracy. It suggests that there are sub-stantial benefits to deliberation, access to information, and the quality of votingdecisions. However, the study also notes some of the caveats to these potentialimprovements, including the persistent presence of power relationships in the op-eration of the digital platform, and the persistent problem of the digital divide.

THE INTERNET & DEMOCRACY PROJECTTis case study is part of a series of studies produced by the Internet &Democracy Project, a research initiative at the Berkman Center for Internet &Society at Harvard University, which investigates the impact of the Internet oncivic engagement and democratic processes. More information on the Internet &Democracy Project can be found at: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/.

Te projects initial case studies focused on three of the most frequently citedexamples of the Internets influence on democracy. Te first case looked at theuser-generated news site OhmyNews and its impact on the 2002 elections inSouth Korea. Te second documented the role of technology in Ukraines OrangeRevolution. Te third analyzed the network composition and content of theIranian blogosphere. Fall 2008 saw the release of a new series of case studies,which broadened the scope of our research and examined some less well-knownparts of the research landscape. In a pair of studies, we reviewed the role of net-worked technologies in the 2007 civic crises of Burmas Saffron Revolution andKenyas post-election turmoil. Urs Gassers three-part work will examine the roleof technology in Swiss democracy. Another case study, set for publication inspring 2009, will expand our study of foreign blogs with an analysis of the Arabiclanguage blogosphere. Te authors wish to thank Anja-Lea Fischer and SandraCortesi for research assistance, and Herbert Burkert, John Palfrey, Bruce Etling,and im Hwang for comments on the cases.

Tis set of case studies was produced in association with the Research Center forInformation Law at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. Te Center sup-ports research initiatives to analyze and assess legal frameworks and provisionsthat are regulating the creation, distribution, access, and usage of information ineconomic, cultural, and political systems. It also works to explore the dynamicchanges in information technologies and their impact on the legal system. Moreinformation about the Center is available online here: http://www.fir.unisg.ch/.


3/18

>> 3

INTRODUCTIONSoon after the emergence of the Internet, politicians dis-covered its potential to inform and communicate withthe general public, and made use of it in diverse forms,

such as the common construction of a personal Web siteor the occasional participation in political chats. Te pres-ent case study seeks to shed some light on one of the morerecent developments of such communication, namely theuse of blogs by political leaders. While the use of blogs bypoliticians in Switzerland has not reached a particularlyadvanced developmental stage, it is remarkable that two ofits most prominent and powerful politicians have recentlylaunched an online presence thatas examined in moredetail belowin both cases is shaped to a large degree bycharacteristics commonly associated with blogs (even if the

second example is not actually called a blog by its pro-ducers):

Moritz Leuenberger, one of seven FederalCouncillorsSwitzerlands executive bodyandMinister of Communications, launched a blogin Spring 2007 that not only features a compara-tively lively discussion section, but has gainedconsiderable mass media attention;

Christoph Blocher, former Federal Councillor,

launched a weekly interview with a journalistin late summer 2007 that is distributed via theInternet as well as some regional V stations.Te series started when Blocher was still in officeas a federal councillor and has been continuedeven after he was voted out of parliament in theautumn of 2007 and became vice-president ofSwitzerlands opposition party. Since its start,the series of interviews has gained an enor-mous amount of attention, not only in terms ofvisitors to the Web site, but also in coverage of

Blochers statements in the mass media.

Te present case study aims to use these examples and theirSwiss context as anecdotal but substantive evidence for abroader tentative assessment of this form of communica-tion. In part two of the case, we will describe the develop-ment of these initiatives up to today and tentatively char-acterize the information and communication exchangedwithin the socio-cultural setting of politicians blogs along

different dimensions, namely the subject matter of thepoliticians communications (person-oriented vs. issue-ori-ented), the degree of interactivity of the communication,and the granularity of the information exchanged (broad

vs. targeted). Ten, in the third section of the case, we willtentatively assess the potential impact of such informationand communication on democratic processes. While suchan assessment naturally depends on different conceptionsof democracy and its main characteristics, we will focuson two benchmarks that seem commonly accepted andparticularly useful for analyzing politicians blogs: First,the act of voting is still understood as a central feature ofany democracy and it may therefore be asked in what sensepolitical leaders blogs might contribute to enhancing itsquality. Second, more recent theories of democracy stress

the importance not only of the mere act of voting, but ofa continuing exchange among and between citizens andpoliticians (deliberative democracy). With a view to boththe act of voting and political deliberation, political lead-ers blogs could potentially be credited with remedying theestrangement of the public from political processes andthereby contribute to solving some of the perveived prob-lems of modern democracy. Lastly, it should be clarifiedthat a psychological investigation into the personal motiva-tion that would lead politicians to start such a blog will notbe included in this case study.

EVIDENCE FROM SWITZERLANDWhile it should be noted that Switzerlands experiencewith blogging politicians is not restricted to the initiativesexamined here, Federal Councillor Moritz Leuenbergersblog and former Federal Councillor Christoph Blochersweekly video interview are by far the most importantnotonly in view of the prominence and political status of theirauthors but also in terms of the attention they receive fromother media. Furthermore, our focus on these two blogsis justified, as earlier research has identified significant dif-ferences between the political and democratic implicationsof blogging on the part of highly visible political leaders ascompared to the blogs of politicians enjoying less promi-nence, such as back-benching members of parliament.1Tese commonalities should, however, not obscure thefact that both initiatives differ considerably in their set-tings, characteristics, and, possibly, their consequences fordemocracy. Te latter holds true particularly in light of the


4/18

>> 4

different roles of the two actors within the Swiss politicalsystemi.e. a member of government (Leuenberger) and aleading politician of the opposition (Blocher).

FEDERAL COUNCILLOR MORITZLeuenbergers bLogOn March 14, 2007, Federal Councillor MoritzLeuenberger, Swiss Minister of Environment, ransport,Energy and Communications, announced he would startwriting a personal blog (http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/). In a press release from his department, Leuenbergercited the blog as an experiment with which he wouldasa minister of communicationslike to find out whetherthis means of expression is suitable for enhancing exchange

with a politically interested audience, while such exchangepreviously could be conducted only by way of post ande-mail.2Leuenberger announced he would aim to write atleast two entries a week if his agenda allowed him time todo so.

As of the date of publication of this case study, the blogconsisted of 80 entries from Leuenberger, which accountsfor a little bit more than one entry per week. However,while Leuenberger published new thoughts every two orthree days at the beginning, intervals between publication

of articles have gone up to seven or even fourteen days afterabout a year following the blogs launch. As regards com-ments, the blog provoked a reaction of 5,230 comments intotal, accounting for about 74 comments per entry on av-erage as of June 2008. However, figures have not remainedat a constant level: While the first two entries received 574and 175 comments respectively, the number of commentsto more recent entries has gradually decreased until theyreached their lowest level at 28. Currently, new entries gen-erally spark between 40 and 100 reactions.

While the blog was initially only available in Germanal-though Leuenberger encouraged users to leave commentsin French as well as Italian3the blog is now still writtenin German but is also translated into French. However,Leuenbergers entries are not translated into Italian,Switzerlands third official language.4By far most reactionsto Leuenbergers entries in the comments section of theblog are written in German; only a few people add to thediscussion in French and even less in Italian.5

Leuenberger continues to write all blog entries on his own.

Yet, before their publication, entries are handed over to hisstaff and corrected for eventual faux pasa procedurethat has lead to the elimination of various articles, accord-ing to Leuenberger.6Direct communication on the blog is

furthermore limited in that reader comments on the blogare not published immediately but are also first reviewedby a member of Leuenbergers staff before going online.

Between its launch in March 2007 and June 2008,Leuenbergers blog has been visited by 2,780 visitors perday. Apart from the summer period, these figures haveapparently increased consistently. Altogether, more thanone million people have visited the blog since July 2007.7While these figures might not seem too impressive in ab-solute terms, they are remarkably high compared to other

Swiss political blogshardly surprising in light of the po-litical standing of its author. In 2007, the blog indeed hadbetter viewership than most other political blogs on promi-nent Swiss Web pages (at least one exception is a blog withcontributions from five prominent members of parliamentand which is hosted by the daily newspaper 20 Minuten). 8

While the status of Leuenbergers blog is, therefore, com-paratively high with respect to the number of visitors,this holds true even more so for the blogs authority.Referring to the number of hyperlinks on other Web sites

that point to Leuenbergers blog, figures from 2007 showLeuenbergers blog with 127 links, which is far ahead ofother political blogs, such as the newspaper NZZs blogwith 23 or 20min.ch (the most successful blog in terms ofnumbers of visitors) with 2 links.9

Leuenbergers Posts

In his first entry, Leuenberger stated that the blog wouldnot serve as a tool to spread news about initiatives of thegovernment or important reportsas equal access to in-formation would not be realized by such publication in the

blog. Rather, he would potentially use the blog to explaindecisions of the government as well as give insights aboutcomplex aspects of political questions. After 16 months ofits existence, one can roughly distinguish three differenttypes of entries that go partly beyond Leuenbergers initialannouncements:

First, Leuenberger has addressed a number of issues in hisblog that are related to his political work as Minister ofEnvironment, ransport, Energy and Communications;


5/18

>> 5

often he begins an entry by relating a certain aspect of hiscurrent political worksuch as a meeting or parliamentarydebate he attended or an interview or speech he gaveandthen goes on to express his own opinion on the question at

issue or gives additional anecdotal information. However,not all of Leuenbergers entries are elicited by some de-velopment outside of the blog, but in many cases heexplicitly addresses comments to earlier posts and gives hisopinion or answer to questions raised in those comments.10Rather than explaining decisions or offering insights ornew information concerning the work of his ministry, hemostly expresses general political thoughts related to thearea of authority of his ministry.11o name but a few ex-amples, he has posted blog entries on topics such as hybridcars, motorcycle racing in Switzerland, bio-fuel, the quality

of television programs, and biodiversity.

Second, consistent with the tradition of the Swiss politicalsystem, where the elected members of the Federal Councilnot only serve as ministers of their respective departments,but have to take overall governmental responsibility as aCouncillor (principle of collegiality12), Leuenberger raisesissues in his blog that are not exclusively or even primar-ily related to his own department. For example, there is anentry related to a forthcoming public vote concerning theappropriateness of the governments distribution of infor-

mation and/or opinion preceding a public vote as well asan entry related to CEO compensation.

Tird, in his blog, Leuenberger mentions anecdotes andepisodes from his daily life that do not have any major po-litical component. For instance, in one entry, Leuenbergerprovided the recipe of a meal he particularly enjoyed or hiscomment on a certain incident where someone else paidthe parking fee for his car.

In general, the blog posts are not extremely time sensitive

or based on issues whose underlying facts change rapidly.Rather, Leuenberger sums up (political) developments incertain fields and offers, more fundamentally, his thoughtson the issues that are discussed in the media and by thepublic.

Comments and Discussion

According to Leuenbergers official Web site, the purposeof the blog is, as mentioned, to establish a platform fordiscussion of topics Leuenberger is concerned with and

that he estimates to be of interest to the greater public. Heexplicitly invites people to engage in the discussion and topublish their questions, suggestions and thoughts in thecomments section of the blog.

Judging by the number of responses he sparks through hisblog posts, Leuenberger does very well compared to otherpolitical blogs; apparently, there is no other blog by a singleprominent Swiss politician that has so many active readers.While it is completely normal that initial figures shoulddecline as novelty diminishes, the blog still succeeds aftermore than 16 months to engage 40 to 100 readers perpost, which apparently is a comparatively high number notonly in Switzerland but also more generally.13

Te most intense discussions seem to have developedaround environmental topics where many participants ac-tively engage not only in reacting to Leuenbergers posts,but also in lively discussions among themselves. In contrastto some of the experiences which other prominent execu-tive politicians abroad initially reported,14the discussionson Leuenbergers blog seem to have been shaped from theblogs beginnings to a considerable degree by an orderlypresentation and even the development of rather detailedarguments concerning environmental questionsalthoughthe exchange of polemical or aggressive statements has not

been avoided altogether, leading to some (but less thanin other blogs) meta-discussions among the participantsabout the style of discussion that is appropriate for theblog. Many participants apparently take quite some timeto develop and present comparatively long and structuredposts that sometimes amount to more than 500 words.15According to the names, monikers, or pseudonyms thatusers provide with their comments, quite a few of them areregular participants; most of them can arguably be associ-ated with left-oriented positions with respect to the envi-ronmental questions discussedwhich should not come

as a surprise given Leuenbergers left-wing political stance.However, there are also some participants that presentmore conservative or liberal16points of view, with whomthere is regularly heated confrontation, without seeing acomplete collapse of orderly discussion. Different individu-als will participate in the discussion depending on the sub-ject of Leuenbergers postbe it related to environmentalpolicy or cultural matters.Leuenberger appears happy with the development of thediscussions on the blog, points to the inspiring, enrich-


6/18

>> 6

ing and amusing character of the comments, and claimsthat a community has developed around his blogalbeita heterogeneous community both in terms of participa-tion and political views.17Leuenberger claims to still read

every single comment (as initially announced) and to havegained new perspectives on issues and even been persuadedby, or at least grappled with, the arguments presented byreaders. Apparently, he has also included some of the com-ments in a book he recently published. On many occa-sions, Leuenberger picks up a thought or opinion expressedas comment to one of his previous blog posts and answersin the form of a new blog entry. He indicates, however,that he is not able to respond to every single comment dueto lack of time.

At one point, Leuenberger consideredin light of thenumerous questions asked in the blogto introduce aspecific section of the blog for such questions that wouldbe answered either by Leuenberger or his staff; the idea,however, has not been realized. Moreover, in contrast toother executive branch politicians blogs,18there seems tobe no moderation or other influential function performedby Leuenbergers staff (going beyond the screening of everypost before publication).

With regard to netiquette on his blog, Leuenberger

claims that only a few of the posts have had to be removedbecause they contained racist or clearly false statementsthat, it was feared, might result in the dispersion of ru-mors. Apparently, there have been no complaints on thepart of readers for failure to publish their contributions.Furthermore, Leuenberger presents himself as open to thehabits of the blogging community that depart significantlyfrom the usual form of political discourse in Switzerland,especially with regard to personal formalities: In one of theearliest posts Leuenberger left it to the individual partici-pants as to whether they wished to address him formally or

informally and declared that he would not feel insulted ifsomeone addressed him informallyan extremely unusualattitude for a Federal Councillor in Switzerland.

Reactions

Te impact of Leuenbergers blog is not limited to theInternet community as expressed by the number ofvisitors mentioned before. Rather, as a recent study hasshown, of all political blogs (including non-Swiss blogs)Leuenbergers is the one most frequently cited by Swiss

print media: As of June 2007, the blog has been cited ormentioned 42 times with the second most popular blog(NZZ votum) not reaching half of that figure.19Tis is allthe more remarkable as the period of examination of that

study covers seven years and Leuenbergers blog was onlyin existence during the last 2 months of that period oftime. With respect to their content, these references have,at least initially, been characterized by criticism and scepti-cal irony, expressing a certain doubt about the value andnecessity of a politicians blog, rather than focusing on thecontent of the blog.20Some doubt has been expressed as tothe appropriateness of Leuenberger writing the blog dur-ing his working hours; his fellow Federal Councillor PascalCouchepin was cited in the media as saying that he didnot have time for such activities.21Leuenberger contradicts

these voices by pointing out that communication to thepublic is also part of his work.

Leuenberger opines that many journalists see the blog asunwelcome competition to their work and therefore reporton it in a biased, ironical, and sometimes even manipula-tive mannereven if they now refer mainly to the contentsof the blog (and not its overall usefulness).22Leuenbergerbelieves the blogs public perception is mainly shaped bythese references in the mass media. Despite all criticism,Leuenberger estimates that other politicians will launch

similar online initiatives, not least because of the attentionthe blog has received in the media.

FORMER FEDERAL COUNCILLORChristoPh bLoChers WeekLy

INTERVIEWIn mid-September 2007, the first issue of a weekly inter-view with Christoph Blocher, at that time federal council-lor and arguably Switzerlands most renowned and con-troversial politician, was broadcast via television and the

Internet. Te series was started five weeks before the gen-eral parliamentary elections in Switzerlandits producersdenied that the timing was on purpose, but contended thatneither Blocher nor his party had exerted any influencewith regard to the timing.

Te interview with Blocher is always conducted by thesame journalist, Matthias Ackeret, who also wrote a bookabout Blocher and his principles of leadership. It lasts forapproximately 15 to 20 minutes. Te choice to implement


7/18

>> 7

an interview-format distinguishes this initiative signifi-cantly from the Internet appearances of other countriesstatesmen, such as German Chancellor Merkels video blog,which usually takes the form of a monologue. However,

interactivity is still significantly limited in that theInternet presence of the interview does notin contrast toLeuenbergers blogallow for discussion.

Te interview is produced and financed by the relativelysmall regional television station ele Schaffhausen, whoseeditor and owner, Norbert Neininger, apparently had theinitial idea for such a series.23From its beginnings, theinterview was not only broadcast by this television station(and partly also by other regional television stations), buthas always been made available via the Internet virtually at

the same time that it was broadcast on television (http://www.teleblocher.ch). Moreover, all episodes remain acces-sible on the Internet as of the date of this publication.

Tough it was not clear at the beginning how long the se-ries would last, most believed that it woul continue at leastuntil December 2007, when Blocher would have to runfor a new four-year term in the Federal Council.24After aclear victory in the parliamentary elections for Blochersparty, for whom he served and arguably still does serve asspiritus rector, he wasin what could be called a small

earth-shattering event in Swiss politicsnot re-elected intothe Federal Council in December 2007. Still, the weeklyinterview series continued to be broadcast, and it has con-tinued to this day. Currently, Blocher serves as vice-presi-dent of his party. Even though he does not hold office ingovernment or parliament, Blocher is still one of the mostrenowned figures in Swiss politics.

From the beginning, the interview received consider-able attention from the general public. Since the regionaltelevision broadcast could not be viewed in all parts of

Switzerland, many people visited the Internet site. Whilein October 2007 approximately 10,000 to 30,000 userswatched the interview via the Internet,25figures increasedin the following months and as of April 2008 have reached20,000 to 60,000 visitors per interview.26Te fact thatBlocher was voted out of office in December 2007 onlyhad a negative influence on visitor statistics momentarily.According to Ackeret, the interview series will continueuntil the end of 2008.

Te interview is created with a minimum of technical ef-fort as the conversation is recorded by only one cameraand without editing.27According to its editor, one episodecosts ele Schaffhausen around CHF 1,500 (approxi-

mately $1200); the interviewer, Ackeret, receives CHF500 (approximately $400) per episode in compensation,while Blocher does not receive any money nor does he payanything to cover the costs of the interview. While it wasapparently planned in the beginning to cover the cost ofthe interview through the contributions of sponsors onthe Internet,28this has yet to happen. Te location of theinterview differs from episode to episode, yet it is gener-ally conducted on locations associated with Blocher, be ithis (former) office as Federal Councillor in Bern, his homenear Zurich, or a castle he owns in the Swiss mountains.

The Interview

According to the series editor, Neuninger, the purpose ofthe interviews is to accompany a politician over a longerperiod of time to enable the observation of how his guid-ing principles, as outlined in Ackerets book, are applied ineveryday politics.29Similarly, Ackeret sees the main attrac-tion of the interview in its ability to shed light on the mostcontroversial politician of Switzerland in a time of politicalchange.

Ackeret claims to be solely responsible for the questionshe asks of Blocher in the interview, and that Blocher hasno influence whatsoever in the formulation of questions.Moreover, as one observer of the broadcast noted, Blocherdoes even not want to be told the questions in advance butrather prefers to answer spontaneously while the camera isrolling.30

Ackerets questions cover a considerable range of topics andgenerally start with references to events that have receivedmedia attention during the week preceding the interview.

However, most questions are related to current develop-ments with Blochers political work.31Blocher is one of thecentral figures in contemporary Swiss politics, especiallyin the last year when his party won in the parliamentaryelections with a campaign mainly focused on him. Tatsame year, Blocher was voted out of office by the parlia-ment, which led his party to drop out of government andclaim to join the opposition. Tese developments were ac-companied by heated debates that to a large extent focusedon the person and activities of Blocher. It comes, therefore,


8/18

>> 8

as little surprise that the interviews with Blocher gave himample opportunity to present his own view on these con-troversies and, in the process, comment on political friendsand (more often) foes. Yet, especially after Blocher was

voted out of government, the topics that Ackeret has cho-sen have not been confined to the debates centered aroundBlochers person but also cover political issues and debatesof general interest. Still, Ackeret always takes current devel-opments or political discussions as a starting point for hisquestions.

Te style of the interview is less controversial than critical-friendly, as Ackeret acknowledges himself. He claims thathis aim is not to annoy Blocher while still addressing everytopic he thinks may be interesting for the public, even if

it may be awkward or unpleasant for the interviewee torespond to. On the other hand, Ackeret acknowledges thatthe interview could also present an opportunity for uncon-ventional PR work for Blocher.32Tis also manifests in thefact that the series is conducted as a sequence of questionsand answers rather than as a controversial discussion.

Ackeret has received proposals for questions from the pub-lic and claims to be receptive to such suggestions and haseven included some of them in the interviews (his e-mailaddress is published on the front page of the ele Blocher

Web site).

Reactions

Right from its original launch, Blochers weekly interviewhas received tremendous attention. Most initial reactions,be it from traditional mass media or various public per-sonalities in Switzerland,33did not respond to the contentor certain political statements made by Blocher in theseinterviews; rather, they addressed the concept of the seriesas suchan apparent novelty in Switzerland.

Much of the initial criticism related to the fact that the se-ries started only a couple of weeks before the national elec-tions which take place every four years, with Blocher beingthe figurehead of his party and at the center of his partyselection campaign. Te interview, it was argued, wouldconstitute just one further break with Swiss political tradi-tions on the part of the Swiss Peoples Party in that FederalCouncillorsthat formerly were seen as statesmen in aposition somehow detached from the everyday argumentsamong the various political partieswould now be heav-

ily included in the parties election campaigns.34Terefore,Blochers interview was seen as political campaigning andwas even called a revolution in election campaigninginthis particular case, however, it was meant without any

negative connotation.35

More fundamentally, the interview series was also accusedof being a political advertisement. o name but a few ex-ampleswhile statements published in the Neue ZrcherZeitung, one of Switzerlands most prestigious newspapers,drew analogies to state television in the former GermanDemocratic Republic, the president of SwitzerlandsChristian Democratic Party, Christophe Darbellay, wascited comparing the interview to Berlusconis practices incontrolling the media in Italy.36Haldimann, editor-in-

chief of Switzerlands state television, expressed the opin-ion on his blog that the interviews broadcast via regionalV stations would violate various provisions of the Swisselecommunications Act.37Beyond such legal arguments,allegations of political propaganda were also voiced withrespect to the style of the interview. Tese voices arguedthat Ackeret would only feed Blocher keywords withoutconducting a confrontational interview. However, publiccriticism decreased after the initial agitation and morepositive statements have come to be voiced. For example,the authenticity of the interview was praised in that it was

conducted without providing Blocher with an opportunityto prepare his answers, and that Ackeret had been able toelicit interesting information from Blocher that otherwisewould not have become public.38

Nonetheless, the initial criticism led to a formal investiga-tion by the Federal Agency for Communication into theinterviews legality under Swiss regulation of radio andtelevision. Tat investigation, however, was only concernedwith the interviews broadcast on the part of regional Vstations, not with its availability on the Internet, and it is

therefore of minor importance for the present case study.It is relevant, however, as it shows that legal restrictions onpolitical communication can potentially be overcome bycommunicating not via V stations but via the Internetsince nothing says that the Internet cannot reach the samesize audience or deliver a comparable user experience, asthe example of Blochers interview shows; this at least holdstrue until the (Swiss) regulation of radio and television isadapted to the new means of broadcast enabled by broad-band Internet.39


9/18

>> 9

Beyond such discussions about the legality, legitimacy, andstyle of the interview series, after the initial brouhaha mostrecent references to the interview series in Swiss mass me-

dia do not refer to the concept of the interview as such, butto political statements made by Blocher in the interview.Yet, not only the content of such references is remarkable,but the sheer quantity: Arguably, as one journalist notes,the interview has become one of Switzerlands most citedbroadcast programs.40Ackeret feels that other journalistsnowadays treat the interview as a regular press conferenceand use the information revealed therein for their own re-porting. Indeed, different media have referred to the inter-view as a source of new information both in terms of factsand in terms of Blochers opinions on various subjects. o

name but one example that combines both categories: Arecent political issue in Switzerland concerned the ques-tion of whether the immunity of oni Brunner, a memberof parliament and current president of the Swiss PeoplesParty, should be terminated as he might have violated theconfidentiality of his office by transferring a report of aparliamentary commission to the department of (former)Federal Councillor Blocher in the autumn of 2007. In oneof the interviews, Blocher confirmed the fact that his de-partment had indeed received such a report from Brunnerbut expressed the opinion that the transfer did not violate

confidentiality rules. Tese statements appeared in manySwiss mass media and clearly constituted new informationrelevant to the general public.41One can hardly say thatthe media attention on Blocher has generally diminishedafter Blocher was voted out of office. Instead, he continuesto enjoy significant visibility in mass media generally, andthe interviews also receive considerable coverage.

TENTATIVE ASSESSMENTPresumably blogs represent an attractive means of com-

munication from the viewpoint of prominent politicians,since both Leuenberger and Blocher pursue their onlineinitiatives without any legal obligation or even the expecta-tion on the part of the general public that they do so. Weturn now to an examination of the potential benefits ofthis form of communication for democratic processes ingeneral. We will tentatively assess the contribution of thetwo specific initiatives examined aboveand, by extension,the potential of similar initiatives as wellwithin the set-

ting of an advanced democracy, primarily against the back-drop of two benchmarks crucial in any democracy, namelytheir contribution to deliberation, i.e. to public discourseas a further legitimizing factor for political actions beyond

elections, and to the quality of voters electoral decisionsthemselves.

Te phenomenon of blogs in general has not yet reacheda stable socio-cultural state, this holds true even more sofor political leaders blogs in particular. Terefore, the fol-lowing assessment may only be of a tentative nature: Sinceboth initiatives were only first started in 2007, the futurewill have to reveal whether they represent the beginningof a lasting tradition, what characteristics will eventuallyprevail, and what long-term consequences such political in-

formation and communication is likely to bring aboutorwhether communication by prominent politicians in theseforms is a mere caprice of the current zeitgeist. Te presentstage can, however, be used to identify likely developmentsand trends, as well as portray anecdotal evidence from theSwiss environment.

Contribution to Deliberation

While the traditional theory of democracy emphasizes vot-ing as the central institution for assessing the legitimacyof a certain democracy and its government, deliberative

democracy theorists argue that legitimate lawmaking andgovernment can only arise from the public deliberationof the citizenry.42While this case study is not the rightplace for a detailed description of all facets of the differentschools of deliberative democracy and their interrelations,the basic principle is straightforward: Deliberation is un-derstood as a rational discourse in which the pros and consof certain political positions are argumentatively clarified.It necessitates an area in social lifethe so-called publicspherewhere people can get together and freely discussand identify societal problems, and through that discussion

influence political action. While political theorists haveconceptualised the preconditions and functions of sucha public sphere in great detail and with somewhat differ-ent emphases, the concepts generally contain two distinctaspects of the public sphere: First, citizens general accessto information, opinions and institutions, and second, citi-zens opportunities to add authority to their opinions.Te Internet is generally credited with the potential to con-tribute to the public sphereand, accordingly, to demo-


10/18

>> 10

cratic deliberation alsoin light of the different charac-teristics of this technological innovation, such as increasedtransparency and greater access to distributed information,or the enhanced interactivity of discourse which may take

place in this sphere.43

Politicians blogs, in particular, asone form of Internet communication, may contribute tothese concepts not in view of their constituting a techno-logical innovation beyond these general characteristics ofInternet communication, but rather as a socio-cultural andcyber-cultural phenomenon with distinct characteristicsthat have been developed within the blogosphere. In thefollowing sections, we will discuss the likely implicationsof such communication on the part of prominent politi-cians in light of the two aspects of political deliberationmentioned above, namely access to information and the

enhanced opportunity for public participation.

Access to Information

Citizen access to politically relevant information is acentral characteristic of a functioning public sphere and,therefore, of deliberative democracy.44As mentioned above,the Internet can contribute to an increased and directflow of information from politicians to the general pub-lic, as the costs of transmitting messages are significantlylowered (compared, for example, to printing and sendingstatements by mail).45Te direct character of the flow of

information is particularly exhibited by the ability to avoidthe scrutiny of information filtering institutions, such asthe mass media, that are thought to undermine the publicsphere.46

As to the character of the information distributed onthe Internet by politicians, investigation into the Swissexperienceas well as reports of experiences in othercountries47have shown that blogs are used to a consider-able degree for the communication of what may be calledhuman touch-related information: Tat is, insights into

the politicians daily business or anecdotal evidence aboutincidents or opinions not directly linked to legislative orother political issues. Tis form of communication is notlikely to be covered by traditional fora of political dis-course, for instance in the mass media, and therefore quali-tatively augment the kind of information available to thegeneral public; Leuenberger in particular has revealed suchinformation in his blog. However, from the point of viewof deliberative democracy, such information may seem ofless relevance, as its publicity does not add significantly to

potential political discourse among the general public orbetween the general public and its political representatives.It may, nevertheless, exert some influence on democraticprocesses in terms of citizens voting decisions.

However, the blogs examined do not restrict themselves tosuch information. Most notably, they are used to distributethe opinions of the respective politicians on various politi-cal questions raised by current events. Yet, even if the bor-ders between such opinions on the one hand and factualstatements on the other may be blurred in political com-munication, one can observe that the blogs are not primar-ily used to reveal new facts related to the office or institu-tion the politician belongs to, such as ministries or parties:While at least a few fact-specific statements that Blocher

revealed in the interview found their way into traditionalmass media,48Leuenberger is even more cautious in thisrespectevidently in order to avoid practices that wouldviolate equal access to information.49He, therefore, usesthe blog as a means of personal, rather than institutionalcommunication. Tis seems appropriate from a normativepoint of view as it prevents pseudo-personalization of aninstitution.

When trying to assess the value of these opinions and oc-casional factual statements distributed in the politicians

blog for deliberative democracy, it is of course true thatthe direct perception of the information on the part ofthe general public is seriously limited: Even though bothLeuenbergers blog and Blochers interviews are visited byhigh numbers of individuals compared to the digital initia-tives of other politicians, the figures of 2,750 visitors onaverage per blog post (Leuenberger) or 20,000-60,000 perinterview (Blocher) are very low compared to the potentialelectorate of about 4 million people in Switzerland, letalone its total population of more than 7 million people.Moreover, it is not likely that such blogs will have the same

reach as mass media anytime in the near future. Even ifone acknowledges that only a fraction of the Swiss popula-tion is genuinely interested in politics, it is clear that noteveryone who is generally interested takes the trouble tomaintain a constant watch over politicians public state-ments. However, the blogs potential contribution to delib-erative democracy is not limited to such direct perceptionon the part of the general publicbut the perception ofthe blogs may be leveraged by other media, not least of allclassic mass media (V or the printed press). As one recent


11/18

>> 11

study has shown, Leuenbergers blog is the most cited po-litical blog in Swiss print media, even though it was onlyin existence during a fraction of the whole period of thatstudy (however, the study does not reveal in what man-

ner Leuenberger was cited).50

Blochers interview series hasquickly developed into one of the most cited media events.Against this backdrop, the exclusion of certain portionsof the population from these blogs by phenomena such asthe digital divide may seem less dramatic, even if it does,of course, mean that the theoretical ideals of a functioningpublic sphere are not achieved. Furthermore, even if thehigh normative standards of the concept of deliberative de-mocracy mayin light of such phenomenanot (yet) bemet completely, the blogs are likely to at least improve thesituation. Teir direct reach is significantly larger than with

previous means of direct communication, such as pressconferences that are generally held before a much morelimited audience.

Te success of the blogs examined may also be measuredby yet another characteristic related to mass media cover-age: Mass media coverage of statements by Blocher andLeuenberger may not only serve as a leveraging tool forthe distribution of the information but also as an indica-tor of the informations relevance for a broader public and,potentially, for deliberative processes. In this regard, it

seems crucial that both initiatives are placed within insti-tutional settings that prevent the politicians Internet pres-ence from merely representing a political advertisement. InBlochers case, the moderator has a free hand with regardto the questions he poses to Blocher and Blocher himselfis not presented with an opportunity to prepare for theinterview. Te possibility for the public to leave commentson Leuenbergers blog posts means that the blog posts aresubject to public discourse, including public criticism.However, the contribution of a politicians blog to delibera-tion is likely to be more restricted if neither comments are

allowed nor other factors are present to prevent the politi-cian from using his or her Internet presence primarily toadvertise himself or herself. In this regard, the video blog ofAngela Merkel,51the acting Chancellor of Germany, mayserve as an instructive example: It represents a mere (one-sided) video speech with no input on the part of either aninterviewer or the general public. As other research hasindicated, the video blog indeed enjoys a high number ofvisitors, but in its current form could hardly ever launch

a political debate52in other words, it does not greatlycontribute to deliberative democracy. However, the risksfor a politician connected with such institutional set-tingsi.e. the relinquishment of complete control over the

communicationlead to a trade-off between the potentialcontribution of a blog to deliberation and the likelihoodthat politicians will be willing to participate in this form ofcommunication.

Altogether, prominent politicians blogs may serve delib-erative democracy in revealing politicians attitudes andopinions on various political subjects that may enter publicdeliberation thereaftereither in the blog itself or in othermedia of political discourse. Te blog may best be used asa means of personal communication and mayinsofar as

the politician represents a political institutionsupple-ment, rather than substitute, institutional communication.Te contribution of the blog to deliberation increases if theblog is placed in an institutional setting that prevents theinformation distributed from merely taking the form ofpersonal promotion of the politician. However, these ob-servations should of course not conceal the fact that greateraccess to information, as enabled by online media, has sofar not been proved to directly lead to an increase in politi-cal participation, or greater civic engagement on a generalbasis.53

Platform of Deliberation

In the initial euphoria surrounding the emergence of theInternet, cyberoptimists claimed that the Internets newpossibilities for information exchange would revolutionizedemocracy since everyone could (and potentially would)enter political discourse without incurring significant costs.However, the development of political communicationon the Internet has presented a more antiseptic reality inthat the existence of the mere technological feasibility andinstitutional structures do not necessarily entail their wide-

spread adoption by the public: Although there are manydifferent political discussions on the Internet, they are gen-erally conducted by a specialized minority.54Such findingshold true also for Leuenbergers blog (while the interviewwith Blocher does, as mentioned above, not allow directreactions at all) which indeed elicits a considerable amountof active discussion, but still only from a very small crowdcompared to the whole population, the potential elector-ate, or even the consumers of traditional mass media.


12/18

>> 12

Furthermore, old barriers to such exchange have partlybeen replaced by new ones, as the debate about the digitaldivide shows.55

However, it would likewise be false to dismiss politicalcommunication in the Internet as mere white noise lack-ing any relevance for deliberative democracy. On the con-trary, both the Internet in general and politicians blogs inparticular may contribute to deliberation considerably. Temain benefit of Internet discussions in general lies in thefact that the Internet presents some significantly advancedpossibilities for people who are already interested in par-ticipating in political discourse, but may now do so moreeasily. Te Internets tools for interaction do not generallyestablish the possibility for a lively exchange of ideas and

thoughts, but its characteristics permit the formation ofparticularly interested and specialized discussion groups:Persons interested in a certain discussion can gather irre-spective of geographical distances, and have the time androom for extensive exchange, as Leuenbergers blog showswith respect to individuals particularly interested in envi-ronmental issues. Furthermore, in light of the possibilitiesof more or less anonymous discourse, one can also expecta higher rate of participation in that shyness or fear of ac-countability for ones statements do not prevent one fromtaking part in the discussion; however, such anonymity

can also draw trolls or other destructive participants to thediscussion. However, in the case of Leuenbergers blog,destructive behaviour does not seem to be preponderantconsidering the claim that only a few blog comments havehad to be removed and that participants generally seemto be happy with the level of discussion. Arguably, thissituation may in part be due to the general perception ofhigh legitimacy that the Swiss population associates withthe Swiss democratic system and its Federal Councillors.56A further benefit of Internet communication for politicaldeliberation in general is that the discussions led on the

Internet usually remain accessible even after they have beenterminated. Finally, concerns as to the prospect that theadvent of online discussions would lead to a fragmentationof political discourse and render it confusing and incom-prehensible57have so far not proved true. On the contrary,the new methods of communication are perceived as hav-ing given a specialized and interested audience additionalpossibilities to inform themselves or enter discussions with-out displacing classic information-filtering and aggregatinginstitutions, such as the mass media.

While these new possibilities of online discourse may be re-alized through different discussion formats on the Internet,the current blog format with the inclusion of a commentsfeature seems to possess several characteristics that make it

particularly favourable to political deliberation in compari-son to other institutions such as online fora and chats withpoliticians. Political fora in many cases did not feature theparticipation of politicians and therefore primarily repre-sented a discussion among citizens. Blogging might changethe landscape since it is particularly attractive for politi-cians: Blogging allows them to take considerable influencein the shaping of the discussion as well as to form a groupof supporters and keep in direct touch with the opinionsand temperaments of the general public. However, oneshould not forget that blogging is also associated with con-

siderable risks from the point of view of the politician thatwould decrease his or her potential willingness to engagein online discussion. Tese risks consist primarily of ac-countability for statements as well as the failure to bridgebetween the socio-cultures of the political sphere and theblogosphere, thereby risking the alienation of one or,worse, even both of them. As compared with the traditionof politicians chats on the Internet, blogging provides theadditional potential benefit to deliberative democracy inthat it permits asynchronous communication to take placeand renders the geographical location of the participants

irrelevant (as the Internet generally does); thus, citizensmay participate at a time that suits them as well as devotemore time to their contributions, which can increase thelevel of the discussion. Furthermore, the experience withpoliticians chats so far has shown that deliberation is con-strained by the limited possibility for discussion amongparticipants (and not only with the politician) and the lackof iterative processes which hinders participants in gettingback to a point previously raised58 Finally, the moderatorof a chat has the ability to choose questions that suit theinterests and needs of the politician59a form of interfer-

ence often more invasive than the practice of pre-screeningblog comments for insulting or false statements. In light ofthese issues, politicians blogs seem to combine the benefitsof both fora and chats: As in chats, a politician has the pos-sibility to extensively lay out his positions and concerns aswell as raise personal issues. As in fora, citizens have timeand space to add their own contributions and may discussamong themselves without time constraints. Deliberationcan also be fostered by the high expectations concerningtopic choice, originality, spontaneity and interactivity that


13/18

>> 13

are currently held by the public at large with respect to po-litical blogs.

Despite all the benefits of politicians blogging in view of

deliberative democracy, the experience of Leuenbergersblog has shown, that there still remain obstacles to the re-alization of ideal deliberation as set out in political theory,even if a politician is generally willing to enter such dis-course:

First, as mentioned above, the blogging politician holdsa comparatively high amount of power over shaping thediscussion in that he dictates the topics and structure ofthe blog. While this possibility is naturally attractive forthe blogging politicianas he or she will favor a form of

communication that centers around his or her personal-ity and opinions60it may constitute a drawback fromthe point of view of deliberative democracy since rationaland issue-focused deliberation is hindered. Te absence ofpower relations as a precondition of the public sphere (a laHabermas) is, therefore, not completely realizedpoliti-cal fora may do better in this regard with a general lackof participation on the part of politicians as the price.However, as could be seen in the blog of Leuenberger, par-ticipants do not slavishly stick to the topics proposed bythe different blog posts. In a recent blog post, for example,

Leuenberger reflects on his blog and its development, butmost comments deal with a discussion of environmentalpolicy that apparently was provoked by current develop-ments and earlier discussions in the blogbut obviouslynot by the actual post they are formally connected with.61Te flip side of the coin connected to this, of course, is thatdiscussion may become less transparent and traceable.

Second, ideal deliberation may also be impeded throughthe influence of the politicians environment, again result-ing in the preconditions of the public sphere not being met

in so far as they demand the absence of power relations.Tis is true for the practices of ex ante or ex post screeningof blog comments, which will, however, be of no majorconcern if exercised cautiously and focused essentiallyon preventing the blog from being spammed by trolls.62However, such influence may go even further. Apparently,concerns in this regard have not been raised in connectionwith Leuenbergers blog, but they have been voiced onother political leaders blogs. For instance, it was discoveredthat on the blog of Margot Wallstrm, vice-president of the

European Commission, one of its most active participantswho voiced strong agreement with the Commissions opin-ions was in fact a member of Wallstrms blog team actingunder a pseudonym. Furthermore, after his unmasking he

acted as an official moderatorwhich may well be neces-sary from a practical point of view given the politicianstime constraints but may raise concerns with regard to hisinfluence on the discussion.63Leuenbergers blog tends todo have less guidance since no official moderator is present(apart from the preliminary review of all blog comments byLeuenbergers staff).

Tird, while the theory of deliberative democracy demandstransparency with respect to the effects of the deliberationand their embeddedness in the political process, such infor-

mation is largely missing with respect to politicians blogs.Tis may decrease the authority of the discussions results.What is rendered visible in the case of Leuenbergers blogis essentially his claims that he would read every blog postand has gained some insights from several blog comments,as well as the inclusion of some of the comments in a re-cent book. Yet, it is not clear how the discussion is evaluat-ed and whether (and to what extent) citizens engagementbrings about effective political consequences.

Fourth, as may be seen from the interview series with

Blocher, facilitating deliberation mayin light of themissing comments functionnot be the primary aim ofa blogging politician. In this regard, the assumptions ofrecent research seem to be confirmed by the Swiss experi-ence: Politicians that arein light of their official positionor claim to be a leading politicianmainly interested inwidespread distribution of their messages will be less con-cerned about engaging in intense communication withindividual citizens.64However, in light of the highly con-troversial status of Blocher as a public figure, one couldalso expect that a potential comments function would

largely attract citizens critical of Blocher, and rational dis-course would not develop in any way. Moreover, the lack ofa comment function does not necessarily prevent the blogfrom indirectly contributing to political deliberation if oth-er safeguards are taken to make the information containedrelevant from the point of view of deliberative democracy.

Fifth, the concerns voiced towards the Internet in generalas a means of political communication do of course alsoapply to blogs. In particular, general admission for all of


14/18

>> 14

the public as a precondition of the public sphere is cur-rently not completely realized in light of the digital divide.

In conclusion, both the Internet in general and politi-

cians blogs in particular may contribute considerably topolitical deliberation. Blogs may be especially effective inlight of their ability to facilitate asynchronous communi-cation and allow the constant participation of the politi-cian. One should, however, not expect that the normativeideal will be realized as such, even if a politician is gener-ally willing to enter into such discourse. Te discussionin Leuenbergers blog arguably does fulfill a number ofcriteria that have been recognized by scholars: exhibitingtwo-directional communication; covering topics of sharedinterest; and being motivated by a mutually shared com-

mitment to rational and focused discourse.65However, thediscussions are still dominated by a few individuals, are tooamorphous, fragmented, and specific, and lack visible im-pactstherefore falling short of the Habermasian ideal ofrational accord.

Quality of Voting Decisions

Te perceived alienation between politicians and citizensmay be alleviated not only through the realization oforat least the increase ofdeliberative democracy, but also

through institutions that bring politicians closer to thegeneral public. With such an increase in transparency, theaccuracy of citizens voting decisions may increase, as theymay more adequately express their preferences when vot-ing, while the act of voting traditionally is believed to es-tablish the backbone of a democracys legitimacy.

Te Internet in general may serve as a tool to improve thelevel of communication on the part of politicians withcommon citizens as opposed to political elites, mass mediaand organized components of the civil society. Blogs in

particular may contribute to such endeavours by illuminat-ing politicians opinions on certain political issues, as out-lined above in connection with deliberative democracy, butalso through the human touch-components of commu-nication: Tey give the politician the opportunity to shedlight on his or her personal qualities and daily work, there-by rendering the politician more comprehensible and plau-sible as a personality. In this regard, it has been argued thatblogging is not just a self-publishing phenomenon, but alsoa form of self-expression or confession that takes out the

barriers between the public and private sector.66Moreover,the social culture developed in the blogosphere may alsoserve as a tool to at least partly overcome hierarchical dif-ferenceswhich can be seen, for example, in the colloquial

style of communication that takes place on Leuenbergersblog. Altogether, the blogging politician is likely to beperceived as a more open, citizen-friendly and innovativeperson. Furthermore, especially a video-blog, given the cur-rent state of the law (in Switzerland), can potentially serveas a tool to get around legal restrictions on political com-munication that apply to broadcasts via television. Whilethis aspect of Internet communication seems to indicatethat it may serve not only to increase the quality of publicperception of the politician, but potentially also to distortit, the characteristics of blogs and the blogosphere arguably

provide some check on politicians ability to present an in-accurate or glossed picture of himself or herself:

First, as experiences in other countries have shown, theonline community reacts negatively if politicians use theInternet solely or even partially as a platform for classicone-to-many-communication and political advertise-ment.67As mentioned above, both initiatives examinedin this case study are shaped by institutional settings thatprevent them from being perceived mainly as such adver-tisements. Tese settings may, therefore, not only serve as

a tool to ensure a potential contribution to deliberative de-mocracy, but may also improve the adequacy of the generalpublics perception of the politician.

Second and related to the first point, politicians may havedifficulties in adapting to the communication habits de-veloped in the blogosphere, as controversies over ex anteor ex post examination of blog comments have shown.From a more general point of view, it has been argued that[t]he problem facing politicians who blog is that they areprofessionally implicated in the very culture that blogging

seeks to transcend. Politicians live in a world of certaintyand tribal loyalty which is at odds with the blogging ethosof open-mindedness and knowledge-sharing. As long aspoliticians are expected to be never in doubt and ever faith-ful to catechismic party messages, their blogging efforts arealways likely to look more like simulation than authenticself-expression. However many jokes they tell or safe vul-nerabilities they expose, the public will never relax in theircompany and will be ever suspicious that todays sponta-neous blog entry was yesterdays faxed message from the


15/18

>> 15

party HQ. Blogging politicians are always going to be seenas a little bit like those old Communist apparatchiks whohad to sit in the front row at rock concerts and pretend toswing to the beat.68In other words, blogging politicians

should expect to be confronted with a particularly criticalaudience.

Tird, politicians are not free to tell what they like, as theymay be held accountable in light of the permanent avail-ability of the information contained in the blog. Tus, citi-zens can compare the politicians statements with his deedson a long-term basis. One has to warn, however, againstoverly ambitious expectations with respect to the increasedaccountability of politicians. Politicians will naturally takethe permanent availability of the information into account

when distributing it on the Internet and will therefore becautious about the information they make available. It is oflittle surprise in this regard, that Leuenberger has apparent-ly not been held accountable for statements he publishedon his blog, nor has any other Swiss politician been heldresponsible for statements given via the Internet.

o conclude, if a prominent politician is willing to entercommunication via a blog, it holds significant potentialto increase the quality of his or her public perception and,therefore, also of the citizens voting decisions.

CONCLUSIONTis case study started with the aim of assessing the con-tribution of leading politicians blogs to democratic pro-cesses. In doing so, we relied on anecdotal but substantiveevidence of two prominent initiatives that were recentlylaunched in Switzerlandnamely, the blog of FederalCouncillor Moritz Leuenberger and a video blog in theform of a weekly interview with Christoph Blocher, for-mer Federal Councillor and current vice-president of the

Swiss Peoples Party. We have to be cautious about broadergeneralization of our conclusions for two reasons: First, thedevelopment of the socio-technological phenomenon ofpolitician blogs has not yet reached a stable state and it is,therefore, not clear whether the characteristics of the cur-rent examples of such blogs will prevail in the futurethisrelates both to the characteristics of the politicians entriesas well as of the discourse potentially allowed within theblog. Second, the subjects of the study were developed inand shaped by the customs of the Swiss democratic and

political system which differ from those found in othercountries in several respects. Of particular relevance forthe potential consequences of leading politicians blogs fordemocratic processes are Switzerlands comparatively small

population as well as the widespread availability of Internetaccess and skills. Moreover, communication and discoursebetween politicians and the general public benefits fromthe Swiss democratic system of semi-direct democracyand the political custom of concordanceSwitzerlandsdemocracy has even been characterized as the conversa-tional form of government par excellence. Against thisbackdrop, one should be careful about generalizing theSwiss experience. However, the example of Switzerland, ademocracy with a comparatively well developed exchangebetween politicians and citizens, may serve to show the

potential contribution of such blogs to democratic pro-cesseseven if the actual experience cannot be transferredto other democracies as such. With these caveats in mind,the studys conclusion is threefold:

First, if prominent politicians choose to start their ownblogwhy they would do so is, as mentioned above, notthe primary subject of this case studyone can expect apotentially significant contribution to the aims of delib-erative democracy. Ten again, such blogs are a means toprovide the general public with additional, mainly personal

(rather than institutional) and opinionated information asto current political issues that may reach citizens either di-rectly or by means of a leveraged distribution via mass me-dia; the contribution to potential deliberation is increasedif institutional settings (or the politicians self-restraint)prevent the blog from representing a mere platform forpersonal advertisement. Furthermore, such deliberationmay even take part within the blog itselfand here, theformat may create possibilities for online discourse thatgo beyond those of other online tools such as fora andchats with politicians. Leuenbergers blog has shown that

a blog can indeed facilitate iterative processes of politicaldiscourse between an interested audience and the respec-tive politician. Polemical contributions and destructivebehaviour was relatively low, which arguably is not only aconsequence of pre-moderation of comments (which wasfairly limited) but may also have profited from the generalperception of high legitimacy which the Swiss democraticsystem enjoys as well as the high public acceptance of itsFederal Councillors. Despite this clear contribution ofpoliticians blogs to deliberative democracy, such blogs


16/18

>> 16

are still not likely to fully meet the high normative stan-dards that this concept demands: Te preconditions ofthe public sphere, as identified by theorists of deliberativedemocracy, are currently not fulfilled. First, digital divides

still persist, namely with regard to usage skills, inhibitinggeneral admission to the discussion. Second, actual and,in all probability, potential participation on such blogs aswell as public visibility is far too low to render the resultsof the discourse normatively binding or even convincingfor the general public. Tird, the institutional settings ofblogs pull the citizens to some degree into the role of anaudience for the self-presentation of the politician, espe-cially if comments are not allowed; in other words, powerrelations are not absent in the blog setting, as the ideals ofdeliberation theory would demand. Fourth, it is currently

not revealed through the medium whether and, if so, whatinfluence the discourse has on effective political action:Although discussions are archived online (and transparentin this regard), the extent to which the discourses resultsare evaluated and how they are dealt with by the politicianin question is generally not made public.

In addition to this contribution to the public sphere anddeliberative democracy, politicians blogs are also likely tobe beneficial to democratic processes in yet another way:Both through the distribution of personal and opinionated

political information and by their human touch compo-nents (including a potential dialogue), blogs improve thequality of a politicians public perception and potentiallythe citizens voting decisions as well (irrespective of a po-tential contribution to deliberation).

Against this backdrop, it seems crucial to understand,thirdly, that politicians blogs serve not as a competitivebut a complimentary means to traditional fora of politicaldiscourse. Blogs can improve democratic processes in cer-tain regards, where the traditional means of political com-

munication have shortcomingsfor example, they poten-tially allow more people to actively participate in politicaldiscourse. On the other hand, there are apparent problemswith this form of communication. For example, traditionalmedia can do better with regard to the broad perceptionof political communication and its orienting function.Limits are present not only with respect to the perceptionof such communication on the part of citizens, but alsothe supply of such communication on the part of politi-cians: Even if blogs are likely to grow in numbers in the

future, it currently seems improbable that every prominentpolitician would, to some degree, follow the examples ofLeuenberger or Blocher, as such communication bears notonly potential but also considerable risks from the point of

view of the politicianespecially increased accountabilityfor statements made on the blog or the possibility of failureto bridge between the socio-cultures of the political sphereand the blogosphere, risking the alienation of one oreven both of them.

Altogether, neither cyberutopians nor cyberpessimistsare likely to be proved right with respect to politiciansblogs: Tese blogs are clearly more than mere white noise,but we cannot expect these instruments to be used to com-pletely heal the alleged wounds which current democracies

suffer from with respect to public perceptions of legiti-macy.

ENDNOTES1While political leaders already have access to different channels for the distribu-tion of information, especially via mass media, blogs are a means for less promi-nent politicians to gain publicity, potential mass media-coverage and, accordingly,potential popularity, which is especially important in times of elections. SeeChristopher Coenen, Weblogs als Mittel der Kommunikation zwischen Politikund Brgern Neue Chancen fr E-Demokratie? (2005), pp. 3 et seq., p. 12,available at http://www.soz.uni-frankfurt.de/K.G/B5_2005_Coenen.pdf.

2 Press Release, Departement fr Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation,Moritz Leuenberger bloggt (March 14, 2007), http://www.uvek.admin.ch/do-kumentation/00474/00492/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=11447. Leuenbergerclaims to have been inspired to start his own blog by a friend of his that leftSwitzerland and uses a blog to keep in touch with his home country. Apparently,the blog Leuenberger refers to is the Auswandererblog (an expatriates blog) byRuedi Baumann, former president of the Swiss Green Party (http://auswanderer-blog.blueblog.ch/); see Leuenbergers blog entry of April 19, 2007 (http://morit-zleuenberger.blueblog.ch/gesellschaft-demokratie-verantwortung/was-zaehlt.html).

3 Press Release, Departement fr Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation,Moritz Leuenberger bloggt (March 14, 2007), http://www.uvek.admin.ch/doku-mentation/00474/00492/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=11447.

4A fact that sometimes has evoked criticism, see, e.g. the comment at: http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/medien-und-informationsgesellschaft/in-eigener-

sache-bemerkungen-zum-blog.html#comments.5 Tus, this distribution reflects the distribution of speakers within each of thethree linguistic communities in the Swiss population.

6 Leuenberger bloggt Blocher souvern ab, Sonntagszeitung, 20 September 2007.

7According to Leuenberger: Moritz Leuenberger, In eigener Sache (Bemerkungenzum Blog), (June 30, 2008), http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/medien-und-informationsgesellschaft/in-eigener-sache-bemerkungen-zum-blog.html.


9 Ibid.


17/18

>> 17

10Blog posts have so far not been sparked by discussions on other blogs, however,which conforms to Leuenbergers statement that he does not represent a typicalblogger since he does not visit many other blogs or engage in discussions con-ducted on other blogs.

11Te fact that Leuenberger does not see his blog primarily as a means to provide

insights or new information concerning the work of his ministry, but to offer hisown thoughts and comments on current issues, is revealed also by his answer whenasked how he would compare his blog posts to his speeches. Rather than referringto content-related aspects, he mostly refers to the speed of production which ismuch higher for his blog posts than for his speeches.

12Tis principle refers to the Federal Council as a collegium of equals thatcommonly share ultimate responsibility, rather than a number of ministers withdistinct responsibilities.

13 For somewhat dated figures in the UK and Germany, see Coenen, op. cit., pp.14 et seq.

14Apparently, discussions within the blog of Margot Wallstrm, vice-president ofthe European Commission, was initially shaped by much meta-discussion aboutthe style of discussion which was appropriate in the blog; see Coenen, op. cit., p.

22 et seq.

15 Moritz Leuenberger, Der Leuen hinkt (July 8, 2008), http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/diverses/der-leuen-hinkt.html.

16Liberal in the traditional sense of laissez faire.

17 Moritz Leuenberger, In eigener Sache (Bemerkungen zum Blog), ( June 30,2008), http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/medien-und-informationsgesell-schaft/in-eigener-sache-bemerkungen-zum-blog.html.

18See Coenen, op. cit., pp. 22 et seq., as to the blog of Wallstrm.

19 Sarah Genner, Politik 2.0 sind Blogs Motoren oder Bedrohung fr dieDemokratie?, Diploma thesis, Zurich 2007, p 77, available at http://politikblogs.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/die-abschlussarbeit-20-beta/.

20 See, e.g. Als Interview kaschierte Politwerbung, ages Anzeiger, 18 September2007.


22Interview with Moritz Leuenberger, available at: http://www.uvek.admin.ch/do-kumentation/interviews/00349/index.html?lang=de.

23 See Lieber Norbert Neininger, Sonntagszeitung, 23 September 2007.

24Christoph Blocher ber sein V und die Affre, SonntagsBlick, 16 September2007.

25 Nur noch wenige zeigen Blocher-V, ages Anzeiger, 24 October 2007.

26Daar d da?, SonntagsBlick, 27 April 2008.

27Interview with Matthias Ackeret.

28Press Release, Departement fr Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie undKommunikation, Kein Aufsichtsverfahren in Sachen Blocher-V (Oct.26, 2007), http://www.uvek.admin.ch/dokumentation/00474/00492/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=15305.

29 Ein Fall fr den Presserat?, ages Anzeiger, 20 September 2007.

30 Daar d da?, SonntagsBlick, 27 April 2008.

31See, as an example, the interview referring to a V debate he conducted withhis successor, Federal Councillor Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, available at http://

www.teleblocher.ch.

32 Interview with Matthias Ackeret.

33Broadcast via the mass media or directly in the internet.

34 See, for example, Als Interview kaschierte Politwerbung, ages Anzeiger, 18September 2007

35Christoph Blocher ber sein V und die Affre, SonntagsBlick, 16 September2007.

36 Ibid.

37http://cr.blog.sf.tv/p71.html.


39As to substance of the legal controversy, one has to distinguish two aspects:First, political campaigning in television is restricted in that political advertise-ments are forbidden and so is the sponsoring of programs with a political content.Te examination by the Agency for Communication exclusively focused on thisquestion and in the end the agency gave green light: Second, according to Swiss

telecommunications law, television programs have to be matter-of-fact (sachgere-cht), and concessionary television stations have to depict the diversity of factsand opinions adequately (Vielfaltsgebot). As apparently no complaint has beenraised, the competent authority, the Independent Authority for Complaints inRadio and elevision Matters (Unabhngige Beschwerdeinstanz fr Radio undFernsehen, UBI) has not decided on the legality of the interview series beingdistributed via regional V stations.


41See, e.g., oni Brunner droht ein Prozess, St. Galler agblatt, 20 June 2008.

42For an overview of deliberative democracy, see e.g. IA (Institut frechnikfolgenabschtzung der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften),Europeans have a Say: Online Debates and Consultations in the EU, Vienna,2005.

43For a somewhat critical assessment, however, see Zizi Papacharissi, Te virtualsphere 2.0 - Te internet, the public sphere, and beyond, in: Andrew Chadwick/Philip N. Howard, eds., Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, New York,2009, pp. 230 et seq.

44As to the increased importance within the setting of a direct democracy, suchas Switzerland, see Justin Reedy and Chris Wells, Information, the internet, anddirect democracy, in: Andrew Chadwick/Philip N. Howard, eds., RoutledgeHandbook of Internet Politics, New York, 2009, pp. 168 et seq.

45Given that access to the internet and usage skills are widespread.

46Jrgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der ffentlichkeit, 1990, p. 268.

47Coenen, op. cit., p. 22.

48See, the controversy with oni Brunner mentioned above in Section 3.2.2.

49 http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/default/die-co2-abgabe-dreht-sich-immer-noch-in-einer-warteschlaufe.html.

50Genner, op. cit., p. 55.

51 http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/DE/Aktuelles/VideoPodcast/video-podcast.html.

52Genner, op. cit., p. 15.

53Papacharissi, op. cit., p. 234.


18/18

54See Papacharissi, op. cit., p. p. 235.

55For example, Leuenberger perceives a difference between the participants in hisblog and the audience at a physical meeting in that the participants in onlinediscussions would generally dispose of highly developed online-skills, especiallywith regard to locating and making use of information available on the internet.

56As compared to the situation elsewhere, such as the EU: See Coenen, op. cit., p.

22 (concerning the (initially) aggressive behavior on Wallstrms blog).57See Papacharissi, op. cit., p. 235.


59Ibid.

60Furthermore, blogs are attractive from the point of view of the politician in thatthey allow him to tighten the network between his sympathizers and establish anonline network of contact persons. See, e.g., Leuenbergers statement that a (heter-ogenous) online community had developed around his blog (http://moritzleuen-berger.blueblog.ch/p82.html).

61 http://moritzleuenberger.blueblog.ch/medien-und-informationsgesellschaft/in-eigener-sache-bemerkungen-zum-blog.html.

62However, they still bear the potential for conflict between the habits of theblogosphere and those of the political sphere.



65Papacharissi, op. cit., p. p. 235.

66Ross Ferguson & Milica Howell, Political Blogs Craze or Convention?,p. 14, available at: http://www.hansard-society.org.uk/blogs/downloads/ar-chive/2007/07/27/political-blogs-craze-or-convention-july-2004.aspx.

67Matthias Paetzolt, Demokratie reloaded? Das demokratische Potentialpolitischer Weblogs in Deutschland, Diploma thesis, 2007, p. 33, available athttp://static.twoday.net/DerGanzNormaleWahnsinn/files/Diplomarbeit-Matthias-

Paetzolt.pdf.

68S. Coleman, Blogs as listening posts rather than soapboxes, in: Ferguson &Howell, op. cit., pp. 27 et seq.

69By former Federal Councillor Kurt Furgler.

politics strategy comm

Documents