Would Africa fit in the Democratic Corporatist Model of media systems?

By Ahmed Lukinga,

Hallin and Mancini (2004) built on previous work to carry out the study on media systems in eighteen West European and North American nations. The study focused on the relationship between the political systems and media in the respective area and how the former shaped the evolution of media institutions and the role they play in the society. Of the past comparative studies they used is that of Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) whose dimensions are closely related to their work as herein discussed. The authors employed comparative analysis in attempt to answer some questions found in the past work of Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm (1956) titled “Four Theories of the Press.” According to Hallin and Mancini their analysis seek to explain “Why is the press as it is?” Why it serves different purposes and differs from one country to another? But to the contrary, they argue that the field of communication reflects on what journalism should be and it is normative in character as Four Theories of the Press. Thus, the three models – Polarized Pluralist, Democratic Corporatist, and Liberal – are instead empirical.

Despite the fact that Four Theories of the Press has analytical inadequacy and political bias, and that Soviet Communist Theory was excluded in the work of Hallin and Mancini, ‘Three Models of Politics’ relate to the normative theories in certain ways (Terhi, 2017). The Polarized Pluralist model resembles the Authoritarian Theory, the Liberal Model connected with the Libertarian Theory, and the Democratic Corporatist Model share some features with the Social Responsibility normative theory of the press.

The three models are characterized individually by the media systems and political variables that affect their operations in their respective countries. The four variables of media system models are newspaper circulation, political parallelism, professionalization, and the role of the state in media system. However, the countries under the study shared some elements and differe in the other. Countries such as France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain fell under the Mediterranean or Polarized Model; Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland were grouped as the North/Central European or Democratic Corporatist Model; and the North Atlantic or Liberal Model had Britain, United States, Canada and Ireland grouped together.

Moreover, the models were identified by the geographical location in which they are found and a key element of the political system which helps in understanding the distinctive characteristics for each of each model in terms of media-politics relationship. Thus, the countries in each model share many characteristics of the political system and political history that shaped the media operations.

The Mediterranean or polarized pluralist mode is characterized by late democratization, both predominantly consensus and predominantly majoritarian, strong role of political parties, periods of authoritarianism, and weaker development of regional legal authority except France, among other elements. On the other hand, in Northern European or democratic corporatist model democratization started early, predominantly consensus, history of segmented pluralism, strong welfare state, and strong development of rational-legal authority. And, the North Atlantic or liberal model were featured by early democratization, predominantly majoritarian, individualizes representation rather than organized pluralism, liberalism, and strong development of rational-legal authority.

Of the three models, Democratic Corporatist, which comprises Scandinavia and the Low Countries, Switzerland, Austria and Germany, is the best over the other two models. Those countries share such characteristics as high degree of political parallelism, advocacy, and external pluralism in the press with the Polarized Pluralist Model. And, other characteristics, include strong development of media markets and professionalism, with the Liberal Model. However, the Democratic Corporatist Countries are featured by early and strong developments of liberal institutions and strong development of civil societies. Limited state power gave birth to press freedom and rights to access government information. Thus, the states which fall under this group are “social states” in which all people participate collectively to ensure welfare.

On the contrary, the private media, in the Liberal countries, are incorrectly assumed to serve the public while pressurized by commercialism. There are tensions between press freedom and government control where it has strong national security interests. Surprisingly, only 15 percent of Britons and 43 percent of the public in Greece trusted the press in 2001 (Hallin and Macini, 2004). The Polarized Pluralist Model, on the other hand, brought about a media system that bows to the influence of politicians whose interests are largely intended to save the powerful minority. Restriction to access public information, discouraging critical reporting, and the ownership of media by political elites and commercial owners still prevail.

High newspaper circulation in Democratic Corporatist countries is higher than in the liberal and polarized pluralist models. It can be traced back to 1766 when the Swedish constitution officially recognized the right to access government information and press freedom (Hallin amd Mancini, 2004). Moreover, Norway granted press freedom in 1814 (Wolland, 1993), the Netherlands in 1815 (van Lenthe and Boerefijn, 1993), Denmark in 1848 (S?llinge, 1999). Belgium also did the same in 1831 (Van Gomple, 1998), Austria in 1867 and Germany in 1874 (Sandford 1976; Humphreys, 1994). The African context to somewhat resembles this model in reference to higher circulation in the print press. Moreover, there is a good number of market-oriented broadcast media, though are regulated by the government.

Although newspaper circulation rose in 1880s in the Mediterranean countries (Hallin and Mancini, 2004) the rate of mass circulation remain lower than in the other groups of countries. The media operated in support of politicians and traders. In Liberal countries, England saw the early newsletters in 1620 in merchants’ community but it was not until 1641 when publications of home news were granted. Following the changes in the English political system in the eighteenth century the press became increasingly subjected to both the opposition and successive administrations (Harris, 1978). The Daily Courant, for instance, was financed by the government to serve its political interests. However, these and many more restrictions delayed and limited mass-circulation press in Britain until the 1850s. Despite the early development of mass circulation of commercial press in the United States, Britain, Canada and Ireland, the circulation measure as medium compared to the two models.

The decline of political parallelism in the Democratic Corporatist countries increased public interest in media content. S?llinge (1999) report the decline of newspapers affiliated with party politics in Denmark from 88 to 37 between 1960 and 1995. In Germany and Italy, journalists are more likely to express ideas and shape opinions. They range from 71 percent to 74 percent compared to British (45 percent), and Swedish (36 percent). The United States was raged behind all the preceding countries for having 21 percent who declared that the media content they produced was shaped by advocacy purposes.

In the Mediterranean countries, in contrast, the tendency of mixing information and commentary is evident. Journalists and media owners have political alliances and are more likely to contest for different political positions, citing Greece as a classical example. Media are provided with financial subsidies by the Greek government; hence they are party-politicized. Journalists in the Liberal countries abide by the principle of political neutrality and, therefore, discourage mixing facts and personal information as it is the case in French journalism.

Strong journalistic professionalism developed earlier in Northern Europe than in the Mediterranean countries. Media houses offer journalists decent salaries and full-time employment as a result of the income earned from the high circulation of newspapers. Unlike in the Liberal or polarized countries, professional associations formed in Northern Europe are very strong today considering that they were first to be found among the countries in the study area. The professional association of journalists in Britain was formed seven years after the formation of the first organization of that kind in Norway in 1883 (H?yer and Lorentzen, 1977). The “Pressclub Concordia” is the oldest press club formed in Austria 1859. From then until 1921 several other associations were established in Northern Europe with exception to Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Switzerland. While these organizations in Democratic Corporatist countries establish rules and decide penalties for media practitioners who go against them, things are different in the United States and Canada. The aforementioned Liberal democracies are less autonomous than Britain in a sense that several attempts have been made to separate editorial and commercialism in the media.

State protection of press freedom with strong intervention with the media operations as the role of the Democratic Corporatist countries is deeply rooted in liberalism that triumphed in the nineteenth century. Conversely, the Mediterranean countries are featured by “periods of censorship” as Hallin and Mancini (2014) noted, while the Liberal press are marked dominated except for Britain and Ireland where public broadcasting is strong.

McQuail (1994) argues that the media culture may have changed to the common world media system includes that of the countries categorized in the three models. Hallin and Mancini (2004) highlights the Liberal Model is changing the other two models in Europe and North America, though there are still many factors that limit the changes in most countries. In Finland, for instance, newspapers inclined to the political system declined from 70 percent to 50 percent between 1950 and 1970. Polemic styles of writing changed to the form in which news and commentary are separated. Commercial broadcasting has also dominant replaced public service and even party newspapers changing the content in such a way they may seem general to the audience.

In a nutshell, the development of media structures are influenced by the political system characteristics including the powerful control of political parties, influence of organized social group and market dominance matching the Polarized Pluralist, Democratic Corporatist and Liberal models respectively. As described above, the models can be used to relate to the systems of individual countries, however, new democracies offer a critique of the three-model paradigm demanding revision of the original framework (Hadland, 2012).