| dc.description.abstract | Abstract: Electoral Rhetoric is a study of the way political parties present their messages tovoters in national elections. put forth. One viewpoint maintained in public andacademic debates is that political rhetoric is timeless, i.e. politicians use the sameverbal tools for conveying their messages as they always have. A conflictingperspective is that of a systematically varying rhetoric. The study aims to test theassumption of the timeless electoral rhetoric, by confronting that idea with threealternative hypotheses in which syste-matic patterns of electoral rhetoric are present. The scheme of analysis proposes three dimensions of the parties' verbal messagesstemming from the communicative demands of the parties. These dimensions focus ongeneric qualities of the messages, constituting the dependent variable of the study: 1)the parties' portrayal of the outside world (i.e. other parties, and general 'reality'), 2)the expression of issues and standpoints (in abstract or concrete fashion), and 3) thepoliticians' verbal techniques for establishing credibility and to create an identificationlink with the voters (using symbols such as metaphors, exemplars, ethos arguments). Three hypotheses of electoral rhetoric are tested, using a content analysis of partypropaganda matter from national elections: election manifestos, TV debates and publicspeeches by the party leaders. The rationale of the first hypothesis the medialisedelectoral rhetoric is that the language of political parties has adjusted to the logic ofmass media. Along with major changes in media structure and practices politicaldiscourse is thought to have incorporated traits such as more negative rhetoric, moreconcrete as opposed to abstract ideas and principled discussion, as well as anincreasing use of identity symbols. When analysing party rhetoric in all the sixteenparliamentary elections held in Sweden 1948 1994, no systematic change in electoralrhetoric can be detected. The hypothesis can thus be rejected. The hypothesis of the system dependent electoral rhetoric holds that different electoralsystems tend to give parties different rhetorical incentives, resulting in differentemphasis in the messages. Parties in plurality (or majority) election systems areexpected to be more negative, more concrete in standpoints and choice of issuecontent, and more self-centred in their rhetoric. Electoral propaganda from Sweden,Denmark and Norway is compared to that of Germany and the United Kingdom,respectively. The study shows no results interpretable in line with the hypothesis. The strategy dependent electoral rhetoric hypothesis states that parties in oppositionparties will produce a systematically different rhetoric from that of parties currently ingovern-ment. When comparing opposition parties with governing parties in theSwedish elections since 1948, a systematic tendency that the strategic positioninfluences party rhetoric can be found (e.g. negativity of the opposition, self-relatingmessages from governing parties). However, differences are for the most part verysmall, and consequently the hypothesis cannot receive support. The main conclusion is that the timeless rhetoric has not been convincingly rejected inthe three tests. Although electoral rhetoric is not invariant or static, the study suggeststhat party messages are less influenced by the structural traits than by individual andother idiosyncratic factors. Åter till "Disputationer" | en |
