Politics must become more accessible

Why good political communication is more than just a good post

By Fernand Weimerskirch

Political communication today takes place in a challenging environment. Complex issues must be explained in just a few sentences; social media rewards sensationalism and speed, whilst political decisions are often becoming more complicated.

The obvious response to this is often that politics needs to communicate more simply.

That is true. But it is not enough.

A Facebook post can attract attention. A video can help explain a position. A newsletter can keep members informed. Yet none of these formats, on its own, can explain how a societal problem becomes a concrete political reform.

This is precisely where we need to think further.

From a political stance to a comprehensible reform project

Take tax policy, for example. A party may state that it considers a particular reform to be socially unbalanced. That is a political stance.

For citizens, however, this raises further questions: What is the party proposing instead? Who would benefit and who would be worse off as a result? How much would this model cost the state? What long-term effects are expected? And on what data are these assumptions based?

The same applies to housing, pensions, healthcare, energy and the labour market.

Political credibility therefore does not arise simply from the frequent repetition of a position. It also arises when people can understand how a party arrives at its position and what concrete consequences its alternative would have.

Information is available – but often scattered

Political parties produce a great deal of information these days. There are press releases, parliamentary questions, speeches, position papers, newsletters, social media and policy dossiers.

The Chamber also documents parliamentary questions, government responses, draft legislation and debates in detail.

The problem, therefore, does not necessarily lie in a lack of information.

The problem is often the lack of context.

Anyone wishing to find out about a specific topic has to piece together the various parts themselves: What was the starting point? What is the government proposing? What is the opposition criticising? What alternatives are there? What action has been taken in Parliament? How has the government responded? And how has the position developed since then?

Why don’t we bring this information together more effectively?

A political dossier that evolves

I could envisage a different model for key reform issues.

It begins with a clear description of the problem and the available data. This is followed by various possible solutions and their respective advantages and disadvantages.

If this leads to a specific reform proposal, the funding, implications and potential conflicting objectives are set out.

Parliamentary questions and the government’s responses are then added, as are new studies, statements from social partners or changes to the original position.

This does not result in a static election manifesto, but rather a political dossier that grows alongside the public debate.

This does not in any way diminish the importance of short posts on social media. On the contrary. It takes on a clearer role: to spark interest, to explain a key message – and to pave the way to comprehensive information.

Transparency also means acknowledging uncertainty

However, there is another aspect to this approach to politics.

Not every question has an immediate, ready-made answer.

Sometimes data is lacking. Sometimes analyses reveal unexpected consequences. Sometimes an initial proposal needs to be amended.

This, too, should be allowed to be visible.

Politics does not automatically gain trust simply by presenting a definitive answer to every complex question within a few hours. Trust can also be built by ensuring that political decisions are prepared in a transparent manner, properly justified and, where necessary, corrected.

The Reform Agenda as a public working method

This is precisely where I see a possible next step for the Reform Agenda 2028 that I have proposed.

It should not merely be a process for developing ideas for the next election manifesto within a party.

It could also demonstrate how these ideas come about.

From problem analysis, through dialogue with academia, social partners, the business community, local authorities and civil society, right through to funding and political decision-making.

The conclusion should not simply be: This is our demand.

Citizens should also be able to understand:

‘This was the problem. These were the possible solutions. We have examined them. That is why we are proposing this course of action. And these are its anticipated effects.’

At a time when political messages are becoming ever shorter, it is precisely this transparency that could make a difference.

For democratic politics does not need less complexity.

It must make complexity understandable.