In 1979, as part of a series of episodes leading up to the first direct elections of the European Parliament, the ZDF tv-show Bürger fragen - Politiker antworten invited CDU-leader Helmut Kohl to answer questions from a Dutch audience. Kohl found himself visibly overwhelmed by an angry audience that interrupted him and did not hide its dislike for Germany: numerous references were made to the Second World War and the Dutch audience also critically commented on the treatment of political opponents in the context of recent German left-wing terrorism. Dutch newspapers celebrated the episode as a showpiece of democracy, while especially the more conservative German press was in large parts disturbed by the audience’s lack of respect for a leading politician.
Bürger fragen - Politiker antworten
Our comparison of Germany and the Netherlands also enables us to reflect upon similarities and differences in the culture of democratic debate in both countries.
In this contribution we trace the history of such mediatised interactions between citizens and politicians back in time. We focus on televised debate broadcasts in Germany and the Netherlands since the 1960s: one of the most prominent platforms for the interaction between politicians and the people on TV. We analyse how these discussions between politicians and a self-confident, embattled audience came to be considered an important part of postwar democratic culture in both the Federal Republic and the Netherlands. By zooming in on speaker roles and communicative practices in these broadcasts, we try to explore changes in the norms that guided the interaction between politicians and the people they aim to represent. Overall, we identify a decline of popular deference, a valorization of fierce and heated practices of discussion as a crucial feature of democratic deliberation, and an increased importance given to popular voices in public debate. Nonetheless, our comparison of Germany and the Netherlands also enables us to reflect upon similarities and differences in the culture of democratic debate in both countries.
By asking these questions we aim to contribute to the growing body of research on the mediatization of politics. Yet, for us, political historians, the role of the mass media in postwar political culture still is a largely uncharted territory. We cannot ignore it, however, if we want to understand how ordinary citizens perceived the political system and their own role in it. After all, mass media has been central to the way citizens learned about politics and, according to American communication scientist Janet Wasko, especially television became a source of “values, ideals, morals, and ethical standards”, a pace-maker for society.[1]
Our research is part of the project The Voice of the People. Popular Expectations of Democracy in Postwar Europe, which is funded within the Förderschwerpunkt Demokratie of the Gerda Henkel Foundation. In our project, we investigate and compare the articulation and mediatisation of popular perceptions and expectations of democracy in (West) Germany, Britain and the Netherlands between 1945 and the 1980s.
Television: an instrument for democracy?
Differences in the structure and legal regulation of the media landscape set aside, in the 1950s and early 1960s we see, in both the Netherlands and West Germany, the emergence of a rather similar distanced and paternalistic idea of broadcasting. Citizens, many broadcasters agreed, needed to be taken by the hand in light of the “flood of images”: a popular topos in the 1950s and 1960s debate about the new media.[2] In West Germany, political coverage was informed by the desire to educate the new republic about democracy and to build a postwar German identity. The American allies, who took a crucial part in (re-)introducing the broadcasting system, believed the forging of democratic characters to be crucial for the stability and success of the new political system in postwar Germany. The broadcasters, too, considered it their mission as public servants to educate the public about democratic virtues and knowledge of the political institutions. In the Federal Republic, these broadcasts were designed along the lines of political debates in parliament or debate clubs. The focus on rationality and fairness of a well-ordered debate promised to extend these implicit rules of democratic deliberation to the broader public.[3]
Early on, however, German broadcasters started to experiment with a more vivid form of civic participation in the field of youth education. Radio youth broadcasts were believed to promote the “free and critical spirit among the youth”, as director of the youth programs for Südwestdeutscher Rundfunk Hertha Sturm described it in 1951.[4] This mindset was considered necessary to establish a sustainable democratic culture. Young citizens, as they often do, served as a projection screen for hopes of democratization.[5] Broadcasters wanted to teach critical opinion-building through practices of discussion.
The broadcasters, too, considered it their mission as public servants to educate the public about democratic virtues and knowledge of the political institutions.
Radio and television as a classroom
One of these early live debate broadcasts was Prominente zu Gast by Berlin radio station RIAS. It aired from 1951 to 1997 and engaged popular politicians in debate with school classes. The “father” of the broadcast, Rudolf Ossowski, argued that the show was able to breathe life into politics, as the youth is naturally critical and expects clear and concise answers to their questions. Both for teen-aged listeners and adults, the broadcast turned “political events of the highest rank” into tangible events. This, however, would only work if the citizens were treated at eye-level and accepted as equal partners in a political debate.[6] Even though the episodes in the 1950s were much more deferent and calm than the ones in the 1970s, the questions the highschoolers asked were surprisingly confrontational, which was in part due to Ossowski’s style of moderation. For instance, in one of the first 1950s episodes Willy Brandt was, among many things, put on the spot regarding Berlin’s safety and representation in national politics.[7]
In the early postwar years, in West Germany, political education could take the shape of political participation: live on air as well as in student parliaments or through surprisingly democratic education practices, as education historian Sonja Levsen has showed. It did so as a reaction to National Socialism and the alleged fragility of German democracy.[8] The conviction that active involvement in political debates is a necessary condition to educate and raise a truly democratic youth was in many ways exceptional in an era that was shaped by a certain distance between the electorate and the state. Confidence in well-ordered representative institutions such as parliament and parties was matched by a reluctance to participate in politics and skepticism toward plebiscitary procedures. Politics, according to Paul Nolte, was essentially perceived as the business of representative bodies.[9]
In Dutch broadcasts, eye-level debates between citizens and politicians such as the ones in Prominente zu Gast were fairly absent in the 1950s. On Dutch television, politics was presented to the public occasionally through the televised sessions of parliament introduced in the mid-1950s, and through the partisan broadcasts of the political parties themselves, who had their own airtime to fill. Yet, much like Germany, the political and media elites were convinced that radio and TV could be used for purposes of political education. In the Dutch case, citizens were assigned a passive role. They were merely to be informed on the parties’ principles and their “views on current political issues”.[10] The Dutch broadcasting organisations shared a paternalistic vision regarding the public.[11] In 1956, an initiative of various youth organisations to organise a political television forum, in which politicians would enter into discussion with young people in the audience, failed because the parties could not agree on a ‘neutral’ moderator.[12] A similar plan was thwarted in 1959 by the director of the party office of the KVP (Katholieke Volkspartij), who admitted that he was "wary" of the idea of such "public discussions" about politics on radio and television.[13] The listeners and viewers were expected to be informed and to place their trust in the political parties that defended their interests in parliament.
Politicians under fire?
Towards the end of the 1950s, however, the distance or gap between politicians and the people was identified as a problem and perceived as a sign of alienation for which not only uneducated citizens, but also politicians themselves were to blame.[14] Dutch broadcasters started to adopt the debate format in an attempt to get the conversation between politicians and citizens going. It did not immediately result in exciting television. The students who interrogated politicians in the tv show Onder Vuur (Under Fire) in the early 1960s, hardly fired away their questions and showed too much deference according to press reports.[15] The show resembled a paternalistic question and answer game, in which the politician acted as a teacher for both the students and the viewers: the studio set-up even looked like a classroom.[16] The students used a very formal form of address. A politician unhappy with the line of questioning reminded the students that it is “always easier to ask questions than answering them”.[17] Deference and polite forms of address were also common in German broadcasted debates even if the questions were more confrontational. It was, it seems, accepted as a requirement for an orderly debate.
As far as the set-up of the broadcasts is concerned, West Germany and the Netherlands paint a rather similar picture. Paralleling the formal climate of debate aesthetically, broadcasters preferred to use round tables or stages with fixed seats. Studios often resembled school classes or debate clubs. Imitating debate in parliament and other plenary halls, they introduced clear speaking orders and reminded their guests of the rules of political discussion such as fairness, a calm-mannered interaction and evidence-based reasoning. In order to ensure the latter, informative clips and hearings of “experts” were included in the broadcast. Emil Obermann, presenter of the German broadcast Pro und Contra, described these ideals clearly. His broadcasted debates were ideally conducted in "fair balance" and as an "open and knowledgeable" exchange of arguments, "expressing applause and displeasure" in "civilized forms".[18] Including citizens in broadcasted debates was believed to set a role model for democratic deliberation. Fritz Eberhard, the former director of Süddeutscher Rundfunk, praised citizen inclusion in televised broadcasts as valuable since it handed viewers a “democratic role model” by delivering “exemplary discussions to the living room”, hopefully triggering them to “think further” and “continue the discussions” at home.[19]
Television as a two-way street: from deference to discussion
Although the desire to educate the public never was far away, from the late 1960s onwards the discourse on television as a democratic instrument shifted from paternalistic notions of education to a focus on transparency, accountability and proximity. Literature on “transparency” and “feedback” as responsibilities of public broadcasting became ubiquitous in the early 1970s[20] and even West-German broadcasting officials such as Dieter Stolte, who were not always known for their progressive spirit, declared that the “one way street” that used to be public broadcasting was now “opened for oncoming traffic”.[21] Historian Christina von Hodenberg has connected this idea to a changed self-understanding of journalists from “an instrument of consensus to a forum of conflict”. Media outlets were to provide the means for critical opinion-forming in the public rather than acting as a loudspeaker of government institutions.[22]
Dutch broadcasting organizations were keen to engage citizens by providing them a stage where they could voice their opinions and address questions to politicians. Previously, on-air interaction of citizens and politicians had stuck to and thus confirmed existing hierarchies in terms of power and knowledge. From the late 1960s onwards, however, ordinary citizens were increasingly presented as a political voice and as ‘experts’ in their own right. The election debates in the run-up to the 1967 general elections included one that responded to, in the words of the national broadcasting agency, the “increasingly evident need for contact between the public and politicians, between parliament and voters”.[23] It allowed citizens to put their questions directly to the politicians and thus initiate a discussion on issues they saw as important.
Politicians were now supposed to master a new skill. The press eagerly reported about their success and failure in interacting with voters on TV. The German Conservative politician Eugen Gerstenmaier was criticized by the press for his paternalistic discussion behavior and unruly treatment of students’ legitimate objections in a youth debate show in 1966. His paternalism and schoolmasterly approach reminds of the behaviour of Dutch politicians in Onder Vuur, except for the fact that Gerstenmaier did indeed receive criticism in the German press. Newspapers noted that he acted like a teacher and apparently felt comfortable to lecture the students about politics. He was reprimanded for the fact that he failed to treat the young citizens as an eye-level partner in debate - a feature that Prominente zu Gast was known and widely liked for.[24] Moderator Ossowski agreed. He wrote a letter to Gerstenmaier and sent a copy to Spiegel editor-in-chief Rudolf Augstein together with the "authorization to publish it". In this letter he attacked Gerstenmaier for his paternalistic attitude. The students, he argued, had learned to exercise critical and analytical thinking; they had become skeptical of any “authoritarian” treatment. Ossowski left no doubt that Gerstemaier failed to live up to the ideals of good political representation that come with a critical democratic public: “The credibility of our state depends on its representatives responding accurately to precise questions”.[25]
Some newspapers agreed and argued that ‘democracy’ also meant allowing politicians to state their case.
In the Netherlands in 1972, a heated televised debate between youth workers and politicians in Brandpunt triggered a public debate about the rules of behaviour. During the debate, a female youth worker expressed her discontent by saying: "I am actually fed up with all this bullshit, we are not here so you can ask us questions, we want to ask you questions!” As VVD politician Haya van Someren Downer’s answers were drowned out by singing, she snapped and stated: "I have listened to you and you should listen to me now, that's only fair!"[26] Some newspapers agreed and argued that ‘democracy’ also meant allowing politicians to state their case.[27] The conservative press qualified the constant interruptions, critical questions and profane language these voters had used as undemocratic and “a horror image [schrikbeeld]” for the future of democracy.[28] More progressive media instead saw the lack of deference as a sign of democratization since the “public did not let itself be used as a prop” but actively intervened: according to De Volkskrant, for once “television was democratized”.[29]
In both countries the practices of interaction and the aesthetic conventions along which they were presented changed between the late 1950s and early 1970s. On the one hand, citizens more overtly voiced criticism in a fiercer language; the interaction became less deferential and less formal. Public perceptions of what makes a good political debate shifted towards ideals of negotiating conflicts and fierce discussions.
From the classroom to the pub
This shift also manifested itself in the spatial setup of these debates and confrontations: settings that confirmed the politician’s authority (classroom, parliament) made way for new arrangements. Current affairs shows covered the campaign trail, with cameras registering discussions between politicians and voters on the streets or on door-to-door canvassing tours. In 1977, the Dutch show Berichten van het front (Messages from the front) reported on how Ria Beckers of the progressive party PPR was addressing voters on the marketplace. Her presence was announced through a megaphone: “Hello, hello, here is Ria Beckers of the PPR, you can get to know her!” PPR cabinet member Boy Trip in turn was speaking with the eldery in a retirement home - and also danced and played billiards with them.[30]
In the Federal Republic, too, a politician’s willingness and ability to directly engage with citizens was put to the test on TV. The German show Jetzt Red I, which was added to the program in 1971, bore the subtitle "Wirtshausdiskurs" ("Pub Discourse") and took the idea of proximity to the people to the extreme. Every month, it broadcasted citizen discussions from pubs and community halls in various Bavarian communities. There, citizens smoked, drank from beer mugs and - often enough in Bavarian vernacular - talked about local grievances or scolded the "Herren in München" (the capital of Bavaria) on air. In the second part of the broadcast, the ministers and secretaries of state had the chance to respond to the criticism. „Jetzt Red I“ was not about deliberation, but about tangible results and promises, or as Burghart called it in a 1979 episode: about "clear answers" to "clear questions."[31] This authenticity informed by lifeworld experts became the standard against which new formats had to prove themselves and showed shifting representation practices on air. The idea of an abstract mandate to act in the name of the people, which is primarily tied to the political objectives of the MP and party representative, was not questioned even in heated television debates. It was the objectives themselves that were discussed or criticized. In Jetzt Red I, on the contrary, politicians were to demonstrate responsibility for the particular interests of distinct societal or regional groups of citizens who themselves formulated the conditions.
“Inappropriate” or democratic? Kohl and the “chaotics”
The late 1960s to 1970s saw a renegotiation of democratic discussion practices. Overall, our paper has stressed the similarities between the Federal Republic and the Netherlands - but the Kohl episode of Bürger fragen - Politiker antworten we introduced earlier can help us to explore differences between both countries, and it also highlights the controversies over what makes a democratic debate.
In Germany, the press reactions to the show mirrored the polarized sentiments of the late 1970s regarding the leftist terrorism of the RAF and a resurgence of far-right conservatism. Conservative politicians since the mid-1970s voiced concerns that leftist voices dominated the German broadcasting system and what happened with Kohl in the show seemed to confirm their critique.[32] The host of the show was blamed for not choosing a more representative audience. Conservative politicians such as Franz-Josef Strauß demanded the host, who was also editor in chief of the ZDF, to step down[33] - which suited their agenda, as they had been lamenting the left-liberal predominance within German broadcasting councils for a while.
Beyond this somewhat stilted scandalization, the reactions differed to quite some extent. Some newspapers like the Hamburger Abendblatt saw a “shameful and embarrassing performance” of the Dutch audience and presenter Appel who failed to “tame” them.[34] Citizen letters in the German press paint a quite diverse palette of reactions to the show. While many were repulsed by the open display of sympathies for leftist terrorism by the Dutch audience or the general tone of the speakers, most agreed that Kohl’s performance was unworthy of a modern-day politician. He seemed “unable to engage in dialogue”, “righteous and full of himself”. To them it was not "left-wing bullies" who turned the episode into a disaster, but Kohl's "inability" to "do justice to critical questions".[35] Elected politicians in the spotlight, several letter-writers agreed, neither deserve nor can they expect deference from the audience. On the contrary, a true confrontation was needed to dismantle the rehearsed appearances of professional politicians.
In the Dutch press, the broadcast got a lot of attention as well, especially after the show Hier en Nu went to Germany to conduct vox pops: on-the-street interviews in which German citizens called the questions from the Dutch audience “shameless” and “inappropriate”.[36] Similar to the German case, press responses were diverse. Interestingly, some saw the confrontation as an articulation of cultural differences particularly regarding debates, as “Kohl wants to answer questions, the Dutch want to air their opinion”.[37] One newspaper made the somewhat exaggerated claim that “here [in the Netherlands], no one loses sleep over a somewhat harsh approach of politicians. That is part of their job”.[38] A citizen writing in to the left-leaning newspaper Het Vrije Volk saw the uproar in Germany over Kohl’s treatment as a sign of a lack of democracy: a hard confrontation was part of the deal and the Germans needed to accept this.[39]
The voice of the people: now on the main-stage
These reactions show us that journalists, politicians and citizens each took a part in determining the main pillars of democratic public debate: with notions of fairness and rationality still being an important marker of democratic discourse, by the end of the 1970s the German and Dutch publics were anything but in agreement of how citizens could participate in public debate, also amongst themselves. What became clear, however, is that the citizens’ voices became an indispensable part of it. Underneath this, we hypothesize, lie two changes in political culture. First of all, new claims to represent the public arose: broadcasted debates and critical journalism since the late 1960s competed with parliaments and party assemblies as arenas of political representation. It was renegotiated who could speak in these arenas and in which manner. Second of all, the expectations towards democracy changed. Throughout the postwar decades, eye-level conversations with citizens became a prerequisite of an MPs' positive public image. The elected representatives were expected to show the ability and willingness to engage openly with citizens and their lifeworld perspectives.
Authors: Malte Fischer, Solange Ploeg and Harm Kaal