The media has become a decisive factor in electoral politics in democracies in all parts of the world. I would even argue that it is impossible to find a democratic country today in which a candidate could win a majority without using the media.
Whenever political parties or candidates campaign their image in the media is a major concern. While the supremacy of mass media in democratic political contests is not new, the way politicians make use of the media to get their message across has changed over time.
Political communications strategies, to a great extent, are technology-driven -- and depend on the accessibility of specific media to the targeted electorate. While media availability differs from one country to another, in most parts of the world television plays the dominant role in political campaigns -- followed by radio and the print media.
YUSHA
Radio programs are of particular importance in less developed countries where not every household can afford a TV.
While the impact of the print media should not be underestimated, its role has largely evolved to that of an agenda-setter. Trends and stories reported in newspapers are frequently picked up by TV and radio journalists and "rebroadcast" over the airwaves.
A relatively new vehicle for political communication is the internet. Usage of the internet for campaign purposes varies and reflects what is commonly termed the growing digital divide.
In highly developed countries such as South Korea or the US, no serious political campaign can be carried out without at least one Web site. Roh Moo-hyun would probably not be the president of South Korea today had it not been for an unparalleled campaign of mostly young dedicated supporters using the Internet.
On the other hand, political online communication in less developed Asian countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Cambodia is still in its infancy. At the same time, political Web sites and online communications are hardly playing any role at all in the run-up to the elections in the Philippines in May.
The explanation for this discrepancy is simple. While South Korea has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world, Internet access in the Philippines is comparatively low, at below 5 percent of the population.
This is not to say that political campaigners in the Philippines shy away from modern technology. The Philippines is known as the "texting capital" of the world. According to industry sources, the 80 million Filipinos send some 150 million text messages every day. Texting is not only the cheapest way to communicate over a distance, it has also become a way of life in this Southeast Asian nation. "The world will be looking at how we use [texting] during the coming elections", says Roland Benzon of Chikka Asia, a leading provider of mobile messaging services.
It will be interesting to observe how the mobile phone technology that was originally invented for interpersonal and private communication is transformed into a mass medium for political campaigns.
The classic role of the media in a democracy is to inform the citizens and to control those with power. Is the media living up to this expectation?
In the Philippines, many observers tend to give a negative answer. An often-heard complaint is that media reports tend to be biased and pursue a hidden political agenda. An attentive reader of Philippine newspapers easily discerns that the line dividing news reports and commentaries is often blurred.
"There is manipulation because there is a lot of money to be made," says Paulynn Sicam, a Philippine columnist.
So-called "envelopmental" journalism is not confined to the Philippines. There, as in other countries, the tendency to pay journalists under the table is particularly rampant in the run-up to elections.
The power of the media is, however, not limited to control over what is published and what is not. In some countries -- and the Philippines is a showcase for this -- the media functions as a gateway for political careers. Florangel Rosario Braid, president of the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication in Manila, laments that her country has become a "showbiztocracy."
She is not alone in criticizing the fact that today, more than ever, film studios and TV channels have to a large extent replaced the parties as a recruiting ground for political candidates.
"The strongest political party in the country is ABS-CBN," says political strategist Jose Leviste, referring to the most important Philippine broadcasting network, which employed the two main contenders for the vice presidency in the May elections -- Senator Loren Legarda and her Senate-colleague Noli de Castro.
While these two broadcasters-turned-politicians may rightly claim that they have gathered political experience as members of the Philippine Senate, the person many Filipinos wish to see as their next president has no experience in public service at all.
Fernando Poe Jr. is the undisputed king of Philippine action movies, but also an absolute political novice, who was lured by the opposition into running for the highest elective office not because of his positions (these remain nebulous to this day) but solely because of his celebrity status.
Often, the media is held responsible for the low level of political discourse. While this finger-pointing may be partly justified in some countries, it would be too simple to just blame the low quality of a country's political culture on the faults of the media. At the end of the day, media products are just like any other item for consumption. Their success or failure -- and with it their political clout -- depend on the people who choose to consume them.
One always has the option to turn off the TV and the radio or stop buying a newspaper that doesn't meet one's standards. Ultimately, therefore, the people get the media that they ask for.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich-Naumann Foundation in the Philippines.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath