news details |
|
|
| The Private In Public | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Apr 20
A major difference between the Indian and Western politicians is about their personal lives. In India, politicians keep their private lives deeply veiled until they turn out to be scandalous. But in western countries, the politicians share with public even the smallest things as what they prefer eating and where they shop often –it makes a personal connection with electorate which not make them celebrities but also fetch them more votes.
Omar Abdullah’s blog at the National Conference site is a welcome step in that direction as it breaks the jinx of Indian political mindset and brings the private into public. Omar though is not the first Indian political leader looking towards online community but his personalized blog on party’s official website certainly gives him an edge.
As not many are expected to be aware of blogging and having an idea of what throwing private into means, here are few thoughts. There are good reasons for the fact that politicians talk about private matters in public and thus feed the media with something that these happily indulge in, and that, vice versa, the media readily step over the imaginary borderline between the public and the private.
From the perspective of the political actors, privatization in the sense that the politicians are presented in private roles and their private environment rather than in their political role, serves four functions: humanization, simplification and distraction, emotionalization and the striving for a celebrity status.
Humanization is a classical image strategy of political actors. Politicians try to appear more human, more personable, more like you and me, thus seemingly close to their voters, like someone familiar. This strategy is preferred for image work with stiff, arrogant or cold types of politicians. Using privatization to simplify and distract is one way of dealing with complex political issues that are difficult to convey to the electorate. Political programs and solutions for political problems are therefore preferably associated with and symbolized by persons. The politician stands for the program. Personalization facilitates the presentation of politics by the political system. At the same time, the political system adapts to the necessities of the media and of television in particular which cannot present politics in an abstract way but has to deliver pictures. The personalization of the political is also an adaptation to the voters who prefer to orient themselves towards persons and not towards abstract programs.
Furthermore, personalization is used to distract from uncomfortable issues. Certain issues are better avoided, particularly if there is not much leeway for decisions or if they are difficult or unpopular, and personalization is a strategy to distract from such topics.
The aim of a strategy using privatization as emotionalization is to generate general sympathy and create emotional bonds.
Finally, politicians use their private life as a strategy to establish, maintain and increase their celebrity status. Fame is a necessary capital for politicians. The celebrity status guarantees media attention since it is also one of the journalistic selection criteria. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
