Intricacies of political communication
Understanding history is a means to better understanding the present. In addition communication is a fundamental tool in influencing people’s thoughts and actions. Taking these two notions together, there is much to be learned from studying communication methods between major leaders of the 20th Century and their followers. The EU-funded project LEADERS FOLLOWERS examined the interactions of political leaders and their audience in interwar Europe and the United States using historical data. The aim was to highlight a vibrant model of interaction. There is a significant correlation of change in terms of media feedback to leaders’ speeches in both the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. The value of communication between leaders and followers varies greatly between totalitarian and democratic conditions. Interestingly enough it is the media that set the tone of political discourse for totalitarian leaders. Furthermore, an information gap was created whereby little or no value was attached to information thus merely masking itself as communication. Although his radio speeches were authoritarian in nature, Roosevelt’s listeners were allowed to feel as though they were participants in a conversation. This contrasts greatly with Nazi and Bolshevik means of discourse where the roles of leaders and followers was much more clearly marked. In terms of private correspondence with their followers exhibited Hitler’s social mobility in sharp contrast to Stalin’s more detached means of staying in the Kremlin. The USA utilised private feedback for presidential policy. By contrast, in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany public communication was largely ignored, fostering unequal levels of trust. The findings of the study are useful in monitoring public communication and its socio-economic impact in Europe.
Keywords
Communication, model, political leaders, totalitarian, democratic