CITIZENS

Icelandic citizens seem to be well informed about government policy. In local surveys, most citizens were familiar with policies in general, and more so with respect to those policies that either interested them or affected their everyday lives. This is more the case with domestic policies than with international politics, because Iceland’s political landscape is not highly complex. It is relatively easy to get a comprehensive overview of the politics, parties and the issues. Iceland is a small country with extensive interpersonal networks. The country’s relatively isolated island status also contributes to its citizens’ inward-looking domestic focus. Some of the voters’ immediate responses to the economic collapse in 2008 show an ability to adapt quickly to changed circumstances, as shown in a survey performed in connection with the parliamentary elections in 2007 and 2009. In this survey, the percentage of voters agreeing with the claim that the country is mainly governed in accordance with the popular will declined from 64% in 2007 to 31% in 2009 (Önnudóttir and Hardarson, 2009).

Norwegian public opinion is generally well-informed about government policies, measures and operations. This is partly attributable to the country’s small size, but also to the population’s high level of education, the very high circulation of newspapers and the widespread access to Internet and television. Moreover, the Scandinavian tradition of transparency in government helps the free press to report accurately about public policies.

The Swedish population has a strong interest in politics. Election turnout is high by most international comparisons and knowledge of issues and candidates is also high. Given the state-centric nature of the Swedish society, citizens are aware of the role of politics in the governing of society and the differences between different constellations of parties in the election campaigns. Studies show that voters tend to decide which party to vote for increasingly late in the election campaigns, a pattern which suggests that voters want to have as much information as possible about the parties’ positions on issues that matter to the voters before they make their vote decisions.

Citizens get most of their information on government policy developments through television, radio and newspapers, which of course are selective in their reporting. Computer access is widespread. Government documents are as a rule freely accessible via the Internet, and published work is also often free. Documents can also be read in public libraries, of which there are many.

Election campaigns serve the purpose of presenting and debating the policies of the government as well as the opposition. A relatively high turnout during national elections (the turnout for the 2007 election was 86.5%) suggests a certain degree of interest and enough knowledge to consider voting important. In the European Union context, Danes are considered among the most knowledgeable about EU issues (partly due to the use of referendums), but turnout at elections for the European Parliament are much lower than for national ones (turnout for EU elections in 2009 was 59.5%), presumably because the issues in such elections are considered less important. The bread-and-butter questions of national Danish politics – jobs, health, education, pensions and so on – can inspire citizens to seek information and take part in politics.

Little systematic information is available that would allow us to assess how well- or ill-informed the Irish electorate is about policy issues. The level of debate on the burning issues of the day, especially the economic and financial crisis facing the country, is fairly high. Technical issues concerning bank solvency, sovereign debt risk, fiscal policy and so on are now discussed in newspapers and on the airwaves in greater detail and with more sophistication than would have been imaginable a decade ago. Access to information is easier now than in the past, especially through the Internet and specialized discussion sites and blogs. There is, however, a widespread feeling of impotency and cynicism, a belief that the individual voter has little or no influence on outcomes, and a sense that no one is or will be answerable for the serious mistakes that were made in economic management and financial regulation during the economic boom.

There is some difference between native Luxembourgers and foreign nationals. The latter (42.9% of the population on January 1, 2010) do not really participate in political life, as they have restricted voting rights and about half of them do not speak Luxembourgish, the language in which political debate takes place. Two new free daily newspapers published in French and particularly popular among young adults may improve awareness of national politics among this population.
The parliament has its own television channel, called ChamberTV, which broadcasts public sessions and a modest one-hour per week magazine is repeated in loop. Even if its audience is small (5.2%), the impact of this program is probably greater than that of the parliamentary newspaper, called Chamber-bliettchen, which consists mainly of verbatim transcripts of the proceedings, and is distributed free of charge to every household in Luxembourg.

The most recent comparative data set which includes New Zealand is the International Social Survey Program. In the 2004 edition, New Zealand respondents overwhelmingly (69%) felt that they had a good or very good understanding of important political issues. Only about 13% of the respondents said that most people are better informed about government and politics. The 2007 edition did not include this question. However, regarding the question “How interested would you say you personally are in politics?” there was a slight decline of political interest in New Zealand between 2004 and 2007.

There is some debate as to whether citizens are well informed in Switzerland. One of the first studies on the issue, based on surveys conducted after popular votes, found that only one out of six voters had a high level of knowledge. Studies based on larger data sets and relating to more recent data showed that about 50% of citizens have good knowledge on public policy issues (i.e., they know the issue at hand and can give motives for their decisions). A recent study by Hanspeter Kriesi reached the conclusion that roughly equal shares of the citizenry lack civic competences, has medium competence and has a high level of competence. Of crucial importance is the intensity of the campaign around a given issue, and knowledge of the content of the bill (Trechsel 2007: 441).
Another study found that just 42% of Swiss citizens knew the number of governing parties (which has not changed during the past five decades), 36% knew the number of signatures needed to trigger a referendum, and about 45% knew the number of EU member states (Armingeon/Erlach).
In a comparative study of “Citizenship and Involvement in Europe,” Swiss citizens scored at the same level as their counterparts in the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway with regard to the importance attributed to politics and interest in politics in general (Deth/Martin 2007: 312). These four countries had had the highest scores of the 11 countries under study. In another recent study on political interest and sophistication, Switzerland was ranked in sixth place (behind Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Germany) among the 21 countries included in the European Social Survey (Bühlmann/Kriesi 2007).
In a recent analysis, Kriesi (2005) argued that citizens are relatively well informed and rational when making their decisions in direct democratic votes. Either they consider arguments and counterarguments, or rely on reasonable heuristics.

The Australian Election Study (AES) surveys, which have been conducted since 1987, show a high level of policy knowledge on socioeconomic issues, which forms the main area of conflict between the main parties. Voters are also relatively well informed about environmental issues, which have been widely canvassed in recent elections. This is especially true of the 2007 federal election in which climate change and the policy response to it were major issues. Issues that are not regularly debated by political elites, such as immigration, defense or foreign affairs, are less well understood by the public.

Democracy requires that the public and its representatives have the means to hold government accountable. In this respect the Finnish situation is satisfactory, although not perfect or excellent. Information on governmental policies and decisions is widely available via the Internet and many policy fields are debated at great length in the mass media. Additionally, the consumption of newspapers is high. A weak spot is no doubt the evaluative and participatory competencies of the public. Recent surveys about the extent to which citizens are informed of government policy-making indicate that only about one-third of the Finnish electorate takes an abstract interest in politics; earlier research findings substantiate this result. Also, the legitimacy and trustworthiness of central political institutions, not least the government, leaves a lot to be desired. One should note, though, that there are probably great differences between policy issues in this respect. Whereas some are widely debated in media and attract attention, hence foster knowledge on the subject, others remain largely unnoticed.

Given the complexities of most political questions, it is highly doubtful that citizens really understand all the motives, objectives and implications of governmental policies. Nevertheless, there are surely differences in people’s levels of knowledge. The extent to which citizens are informed of government policy-making depends both on the supply of in-depth information and the interest in consuming this information. On the supply side, the nationwide print media market is dominated by five leading daily newspapers. On the demand side, the circulation of quality newspapers seems small. However, the Internet has become an increasingly important medium for citizens to gather information, and broadcasters, radio stations and newspaper publishers have adapted to the new circumstances by providing a great deal of their services online.
Television news programs are the main source of information for most citizens. High-quality news broadcasts have a substantial audience. According to one survey, around half of the population watches a news program every day.
Even though high-quality information thus reaches a great deal of the citizenry, there is ongoing discussion as to the willingness of citizens to digest the information provided. According to a survey (Allbus 2008: 61) in 2008, the proportion of those who are interested or very interested in politics was close to one-third in the former West German states. In the former East Germany, on average, public interest in politics is slightly less strong (27.4% in 2008). In addition, older people are more interested in politics than younger generations, and social status plays a key role as well. But looking at the long run, it is evident that more people today are interested in politics than was the case four decades ago.
Germany also performs quite well in international surveys with respect to its citizens’ interest in politics and self-assessments of political knowledge. According to the European Social Survey (ESS) 2004, Germans regard themselves as “interested in politics.” Moreover, few agreed with the statement “Politics is too complicated to understand,” while “Making one’s mind up about political issues” was seen as relatively easy. As a part of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) 2004, 61.3% of the participants in the former West Germany and 64.2% of the participants in the former East Germany agreed or strongly agreed on the importance of having a “good understanding of important political issues,” compared to an overall average of 53.8%. All in all, in international comparison Germans rate their own political knowledge as extensive.
Of course, it is questionable whether these kinds of self-assessment exercises indeed reflect the true level of information held. Nevertheless, it is an argument for seeing the issue in a relatively positive light, particularly in international comparison.

There is a substantial amount of information about policies and policy-making available in Japan.
However, while there are significant opportunities to become informed, this does not necessarily mean that citizens feel satisfied and consider the information trustworthy. In the 2006 AsiaBarometer study, 56% of respondents stated that they were very or somewhat satisfied with the scope of the right to be informed about government. A 2007 survey found that 38% found NHK and 37% found newspapers to be reliable sources of information. While these percentages are not particularly high, it may nevertheless be concluded that, compared to many other countries, Japanese citizens seem to enjoy a high standard in terms of available information on government policy, but that they are also critical viewers and readers.

The British government very actively tries to inform citizens of government policies, mainly through very detailed websites both on the core executive and ministerial level. Nevertheless, most citizens gain their knowledge of government initiatives and policies from the printed and electronic mass media rather than directly from government websites. Opinion poll data indicates that, with respect to widely touted “e-government” initiatives, citizens above all expect increased accountability on the part of the government (28%), better cost effectiveness (19%) and only then better information for themselves (18%).

It can be argued that the way the information is made available is somewhat passive – that is, it is there for anyone who wants to access it, but government is not inclined to reach out to inform citizens more actively, except at election times.

Citizens’ opportunity to be informed of government activities is guaranteed in a form which complies with the usual standards of liberal democracy. The existing lack of knowledge is first and foremost a product of the inability to use, understand, and digest the available information (information overload).
The government tries to bridge the gap between the information citizens could have and the information they do have by pursuing an active information policy, for example, by advertising the government’s intentions and results in newspapers. However, this engenders other problems because newspapers can become rather dependent on the relatively significant source of financial subsidies provided by the government. The opposition usually criticizes this kind of information policy as “propaganda,” paid for by public funds.
Political interest seems to be on the decline. In an IMAS survey in October/November 2009, only 29% of respondents claimed they pay attention to domestic politics while 71% claimed they pay no attention to domestic politics. At the beginning of the decade, 56% of respondents expressed an interest in politics and 44% expressed no interest.

Few citizens are well informed about government policies. Indeed, most citizens have only a rudimental knowledge, as revealed by public opinion polls. On the other hand, governments on both the federal and provincial level make serious attempts to inform citizens about policy issues.

Many citizens are well-informed on the details of a few hotly debated government policies. However, many other important policy fields, particularly in the economic and social realms, show much lower knowledge levels. The quality of information available is often limited, because political questions are often personalized, and thus interpreted as power struggles between ambitious individuals. The political spectrum remains very narrow, limiting the scope of political discussion and making it hard for citizens to develop their own opinion. The low trust in government announcements and in the mainstream media provides fertile ground for the spread of rumors.
There is also a difference between the generations: The generation that grew up during the Korean War filters information through an anticommunist lens. The generation socialized during the struggle for democracy is highly politicized and has a general mistrust of the government, while the younger generation is less politicized and less informed about political issues.

As one knowledgeable observer recently put it: “The political ignorance of the American voter is one of the best-documented data sets in political science”. Although many of the survey measures, for the sake of long-term comparability, focus on factual knowledge about political institutions, processes and officeholders, there have been many demonstrations that the lack of information extends to matters of policy. However, some scholars have insisted that polarization in American politics has led to greater issue attentiveness among voters interested in politics. George W. Bush was a major figure in both polarizing and energizing the electorate. Polling showed that 50% of voters followed the 2000 election “somewhat closely.” In 2004, the percentage following “somewhat closely” jumped to 66%. In 2008, it increased further to 79%, with 32% following the election “very closely.” What remains unclear, however, is whether increased attentiveness leads to a stronger understanding of policy. The financial crisis, which peaked during the election campaign, elicited an unusual interest in economic and financial issues, though that interest was driven by fears and worries. The debates among presidential candidates also responded to interest in health care legislation. The use of Internet sources, text messaging and social networks helped to address information needs and may have increased the amount and quality of information voters acquired.
Scholars debate how important citizens’ lack of information is for their ability to perform their role effectively. But it seems unlikely that citizens with such large information gaps and misperceptions can be a reliably constructive force in policy-making in the United States.

According to data from the European Social Survey 2008, a Belgian citizen’s political knowledge is rated as average. When asked whether “politics is too complicated to understand,” 40% of respondents said “regularly” or “frequently,” as compared to 21.2% in Denmark or 30.1% in Germany. Belgium is on par with the United Kingdom (39.2%), Spain (39.5%), Romania (41.7%) and Portugal (42%). There is thus a high level of political alienation in the country, which is at least partly due to the high level of development of the party organizations (“particracy”) and the consociational and neo-corporatist logic of the system (whereby “politics is managed by the elites” behind closed doors).
On the other hand, one must emphasize that the complex (and evolving) institutional structure makes it actually very difficult to understand the role of each government institution. Again according to the European Social Survey 2008, Belgians spend slightly more time reading political news in newspapers than the average European.

Information on government policies is easily available to all citizens. After months of what was effectively a prolonged election campaign through late 2009 and early 2010, citizens are likely to be familiar with the basic policies and views of political parties. However, they are less well informed of details, and have limited ability to reach informed evaluations. This reflects weaknesses in the media and the limited range of trusted expert opinions.

Political interest and participation have been in decline in the last decades. It is too early to assess the high degree of participation observed in the 2007 presidential election. On important matters (e.g., the referendum on the EU constitutional treaty in 2004, or political and social conflicts on important government reforms), political interest can be very high; but, in these cases, the simplification of the choice (for or against) favors polarization, which means that ideological and populist arguments dominate the debate, marginalizing more precise considerations on the impact of policies.
Citizens can be seen as poorly informed as the reform agenda since 2007 has been very complicated and as most people only get their information from television. Television stations devote very little time to any topic and tend more and more to prefer talk shows where people express their views rather than using prime-time hours for programming topics seen as unattractive to large audiences. Information follows mobilization, rather than the other way around. It is rather common that information is provided once a group of citizens or political activists have succeeded in attracting media attention. In addition, information is rather biased, both on the side of government and of the opposition, including trade unions. Finally, rumors, false news, media buzz make very difficult any process of disseminating fair and transparent information.

Data on the public level of understanding of the political environment (such as who occupies different institutional positions) is regularly collected and available (see, for instance, the ITANES Italian National Election Studies polls), indicating a moderate level of information. However, there is no empirical data on the public’s understanding of government policies. As policy issues are often discussed on television programs that are widely viewed and are the predominant source of information for the biggest share of the population, we can estimate that the general population should have a superficial level of information on major policies (such as pensions, labor issues or taxes). Levels of knowledge about specific policy details and individual sectoral policies are certainly much lower for the majority of citizens.
In-depth information on many policy issues is published in newspapers, which reach only a small part of the population, and also online in locations such as the government’s website.

There is sufficient availability of policy information in Mexico to enable the citizenry to be well informed. However, two problems persist. First, there is little public trust in government. This may not be particularly unusual in comparative terms, but is a particular factor in Mexico. The legacy of authoritarian rule has been partly responsible for this, but the continuing evidence of corruption in government matters more. Second, levels of education and of civic awareness are not high in Mexico, though they are on an upward trend. As a result, there tend to be specialized publics who follow particular themes in detail, and are well informed about them. Then there is a general public, which is rather conservative in its views and skeptical as to the merits of high-quality public debate.

Dutch respondents claim to spend slightly more time than the average European respondent on gathering political information via television, radio or newspapers. Nevertheless, the broader public does not seem to be well-informed on a broad range of government policies. This is due not to a lack of information, as there are abundant information sources, and thresholds to accessing information are low. As many people find political information emanating from The Hague complicated and/or uninteresting, they often fail to pay attention to it. A recent study elaborates on this issue. Four types of citizens are distinguished regarding their degree of political involvement: “wait-and-see” citizens (25%), impartial citizens (17%), dependent citizens (23%) and active citizens (35%). Active citizens show the highest motivation to become actively involved in public debate and – if possible – decision-making.

Although variation is found across citizen-types concerning political involvement, it is also necessary to reflect on trends concerning the entirety of Dutch citizens. In 2010, the Council of Public Administration pointed to an unacceptably deep “cleavage” between politics and society. This is due, however, not only to inaction among citizens. The Netherlands’ vertically organized political institutions do not create the conditions needed to establish new connections with citizens, who operate horizontally. This also applies to the media, which plays a key role in improving how citizens frame their opinions.

At the same time, Dutch society is generally characterized as featuring robust civic activity due to the presence of several active political groups. Members of these groups are usually very well-informed, although their knowledge is often focused on specific areas of government policy. Nonetheless, relatively few Dutch citizens participate actively in political parties, excepting religious parties. Membership in political parties is decreasing and comprises only 2.5% to 3% of the electorate.

The public’s general knowledge of government policy is limited. As Poland’s “astronomic” voter volatility indicates, elections in Poland are about “throwing out the rascals” rather than a balanced assessment of policy performance and the quality of electoral programs (Markowski 2007). This state of affairs can be attributed in part to the public media’s prevailing political bias, which is now in favor of the opposition parties. Second, as the low voter turnout and other indicators suggest, the interests in politics is low. Finally, many voters lack a coherent belief system, and thus face problems in evaluating and assessing policy effects and proposals.

Citizens’ knowledge of government policy is limited. While substantial information is available, the media literacy of the population and the public interest in policies are low. The recurring corruption scandals have led to frustration and disenchantment. According to a poll in 2008, less than half of Slovak citizens trust the cabinet and even less than half of the population trusts the parliament. A near two-thirds of the population is concerned about the undignified behavior of politicians (Bútora et al. 2009, pp. 20-21, 33-34).

In general, most Spanish citizens are little interested in politics (including the details of government composition or power struggles), and are thus little aware of specific policies as well. According to a variety of polls, levels of interest in politics have remained stubbornly low, and expressions of complete disinterest in politics are more widespread among Spaniards than among citizens of any other West European country. As an approximate average of different results found in several national and regional opinion polls conducted recently by the official sociological research institute (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, CIS), only about 5% of Spaniards declare themselves to be very attentive to political events (and 25% to be somewhat interested), while 40% describe themselves as little interested and 30% do not care at all. Less than 20% of Spaniards follow politics by reading newspapers regularly, as compared to a Western European average that fluctuates near 65%.

In general, the government does not do a good job of informing citizens about the content and development of its policies. In his monthly TV appearance, the prime minister touches on government success stories, but is not accountable to the public in the matters where the government fails. Government officials always highlight policies as promising objectives, but do not provide follow-up announcements. There is no survey on how citizens gain their information on government policy, but it is evident that the policy-making process is not transparent, participatory or interactive. The public learns of many policies only after the implementation process has started. The level of public knowledge about government is low, as is the level of satisfaction, but people do not complain about this. This is a major deficiency of the policy-making process in Turkey and is the result of the non-participatory nature of the policy-making process. Surveys basically measure respondents’ opinions on the government’s policies for or against, but never attempt to test whether the people in fact have sufficient information as to the policy content. Recent polls on the referendum process discovered that many respondents did not know what a referendum was, or what was being voted on in the referendum. This can be explained in part by the indifference of the public. However, the government has considerable room to enhance participatory policy-making methods, at least at the level of need assessment and the public evaluation of alternative policies.

Print media discussion of policy reform proposals and government programs is relatively widespread, including discussion of reform proposals and options presented by the ad hoc policy reform commissions, as was seen with the issues of education and pension reform. Yet a large share of population is excluded from this exposure and discussion due to its low levels of education, limited understanding of in-depth analysis, and/or lack of exposure to media other than television. In addition, the oligopolistic structures of the media in Chile distort the political options offered to citizens. Disinformation and manipulations hinder public policy discussions.

The Greek public has a high interest in politics, but considerably less knowledge of specific government policies. Historically, high levels of politicization have served to obscure policy debates, as have the substantial levels of clientelism. Though partisanship does not run as high today as in the past, much of the previous neglect remains buttressed by other factors.
However, the lack of professionalism among journalists, the sensationalism which prevails in media programs and the relatively minimal emphasis put by the state and major political parties on civic education result in citizens being ill informed of government policies. Most citizens have at best an elementary knowledge of policies, which is evident in the widespread inability to understand and assess the main facts about macroeconomic and fiscal policies, or about social security, education and taxation reforms.

Few citizens are well-informed about government policy-making. Political interest is weak, the quality of the media low. Within the context of strong political polarization, even basic facts are contested and attention tends to focus on politics rather than actual policies. A majority of people thus neither understand the motives and objectives, nor the effects and implications of policies at stake.

Policy knowledge is very unevenly distributed through the population, with few relatively well-informed citizens coexisting with a large number who have only a rudimentary knowledge of policy. This situation is inevitably a reflection of the deeply unequal levels of educational attainment in Portugal. However, it is compounded by the generally highly legalistic presentation of policy, in a language that tends to be exclusionary for many citizens; by a media system that very rarely provides in-depth policy analysis; by a weak civil society that does not have the capacity to engage and socialize citizens on policy issues; and by opposition parties that tend to focus on short-term political critiques of the government rather than offering in-depth policy alternatives.