1

ECPR Joint Sessions April 12-16 2008, Rennes

Workshop ‘Parliamentary and Representative Roles in Modern Legislatures’ (directors: Magnus Blomgren and Olivier Rozenberg)

Legislators’ Online Presentation of Self in Belgium and the Netherlands

Audrey André (audrey.andre@vub.ac.be) Sam Depauw (sam.depauw@vub.ac.be) Silvia Erzeel (silvia.erzeel@vub.ac.be) Kris Deschouwer (kris.deschouwer@vub.ac.be) POLI - Vrije Universiteit Brussel

1. Introduction

Political representation is most often thought of as the congruence of constituents’ policy opinions and legislators’ actions. (Powell 2004) That is, a legislator should do what people in the district want. Within the geographical district, however, legislators perceive concentric circles of supporting “constituencies”1: individuals and groups who will always support them, even against co-partisans; individuals and groups who support them this time; and some whose vote they will never get. (Fenno 1978:8) Such supporting constituencies may be defined in partisan terms, in terms of functional groups or territorial communities. That is, legislators make decisions as to who the people are whose wants they observe and they face strategic choices and trade-offs asking these groups for support. First, where district magnitude is small, legislators are more likely to make the district their focus of representation. But even outside single-member districts – where “representation is collective and partisan” – legislators may seek to concentrate support around their hometown. Doing so, legislators, and legislative scholars, face the additional question how to define relevant territorial sub-constituencies, however. (Esaiasson 1999) Second, even within single-member districts, diversity and heterogeneity undermine the accuracy of legislators’ perceptions of constituent opinions. (Jewell 1983) For this reason, US districts are not communities of interest, Rehfeld (2005) argued. Diversity and heterogeneity have only increased in recent years: a trend towards individualisation has undermined the effectiveness of “meaningful collectivities” as informational shortcuts to constituent opinions, while global interdependencies and rapid social, economic and technological change have reduced issue longevity. (Andeweg 2003:155) Moreover, representation is not limited to policy congruence: legislators may concentrate on service and allocation responsiveness – providing assistance to, and obtaining public funds or projects for, local communities or social groups. (Thomassen and Andeweg 2004; Eulau and Karps 1977) Legislators routinely make representative claims – that is, they put themselves forward as the spokesperson for particular constituencies. To this end, they seek to convey impressions of themselves and of the constituencies they seek to represent. Such claims should not be dismissed as merely symbolic representation, however: the active depiction of a constituency as “requiring this or that, as having this or that set of interests” is central to the act of representation. (Saward 2006: 301) Personal websites constitute a relatively new venue for this purpose. On their webpage legislators seek to present themselves as a person and as a representative: nearly all sites feature biographies and most relate what legislators do in and outside Parliament. Doing so, legislators face important tactical choices and trade-offs in determining their online self-presentational strategies. While the world-wide web embodies the opportunity to reach a nation-

2

wide audience – no matter how geographically dispersed, the actual number of people visiting political websites is limited. They are disproportionately drawn from the politically interested. (Norris 2003) In addition, the Internet is a major feature in theories of recent changes in political campaigns, emphasising more targeted communications and the person of the candidate. (Farrell and Webb 1999) Thus, legislators have to decide whether to concentrate on impressing on the visitor their likeable nature as a person or their qualification for the job. They may seek to ingratiate themselves with local communities or functional groups2; with strong party identifiers or with the general public – in much the same way a US congressman would face a heterogeneous district. With a few exceptions (Chappelet 2004; Gulati 2004; Smith and Webster 2004; Jarvis and Wilkerson 2003; Jackson 2003; Van Aelst 2002; Carter 1999; Campbell 1999), legislators’ personal websites have not been a much-studied topic – contrary to party websites. (e.g. Norris 2003) Yet, on their personal webpage legislators enjoy a degree of discretion in presenting their person and work that is unheard of in Parliament (for instance, on roll call votes) or in the media. Mostly, national media coverage tends to be restricted to Cabinet ministers or, at most, members in a position of authority. (Cook 1986) Parties rarely go beyond offering templates, guidelines concerning the house style, staff and training.3 Data and Case Selection: For this purpose, the personal websites of 56 Flemish Members of the Belgian House of Representatives and 82 Members of the Dutch Parliament were coded, using the detailed checklist of self-presentational tactics presented below. The websites were accessed in February and March 2008. The study focuses on the three traditional parties: the Social Democrats, the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, and the far right Vlaams Belang – excluding Cabinet ministers. The entire website was coded – including entries in weblogs dating back to the beginning of the Belgian federal election campaign (May 2007). External links (e.g. to parliamentary or party websites) were not followed. Why were Belgium and the Netherlands selected? Legislators’ online self-presentations are expected to be the result of electoral rules and parliamentary organisation. That is, the electoral rules have an impact on legislators’ ingratiation tactics (i.e. whose support they seek), whereas parliamentary organisation is expected to affect the tactics of self-promotion (i.e. what qualification legislators claim to possess). Comparing the Netherlands to the Nordic states, Thomassen and Esaiasson (2006:222) observed that representation of regional interests is less common in systems not using districts at all – while the findings regarding district magnitude were inconclusive.4 What territorial representative claims were made, could be explained by the inclusion of regional party executives in the nomination process and the resentment of peripheral regions. That way, they allowed for the fact that beyond some magnitude it is extremely hard for any candidate to stand out from his/her competitors – even if intra-party competition ought to be fiercer at that point. The reason, Shugart, Valdini and Suominen (2005) claimed, is that voters will balk at the information demands posed by that many candidates and will turn to simple cues – the party label, in particular. Other simple cues, however, include legislators mentioning having been born in the district or having prior experience on the local level. On the other hand, Esaiasson and Thomassen (2004) argued, territorial representation constitutes a “Belgian state of affairs” – a cultural penchant for clientelism. That state of affairs, however, became deeply controversial by the mid 1990s – especially in Flanders where the regional Parliament adopted a deontological code of conduct in 1998. That code of conduct does not apply to members of the Federal Parliament – but it highlights the need for a re-examination of the evidence. Apart from the presence of districts, the electoral rules in Belgium and the Netherlands sport more similarities than differences. Both employ ordered-list proportional systems, providing incentives to cultivate a personal vote – while at the same time restricting the chance of securing re-election against the party’s wishes. In the Netherlands, a candidate needs to obtain 25 per cent of the electoral quotient to be (re-)elected – irrespective of his/her position on the list. Over the years only a handful of candidates has managed this feat, the vast majority is elected in the order

3

of the list. About one in four voters supports a candidate lower on the list – about half of the PvdA and VVD voters. (Deschouwer and Lucardie 2003:139) In Belgium, voters are not restricted to vote for a single candidate; they may vote for the list, or for as many candidates as they like within one list. As many of the list votes (max. half of the total number) are then added to the top candidate’s preference votes as are needed to reach the electoral quotient. The remaining list votes are then added to the second’s preference votes, and so on. About 60 per cent of Belgian voters do not vote for the list – but many support the top candidate. The second factor affecting legislators’ self-promotion strategies is the parliamentary organisation. While parliamentarism in the Netherlands takes the form of ‘working parliamentarism’, the Belgian Parliament is closer to a ‘debating parliament’. Legislative structure, Evans (1999) argued, is built around committee jurisdictions, committee and party leadership prerogatives, and floor procedure. The most striking difference concerns the practice of a detailed division of labour in the form of spokespersonships in the Dutch parliamentary party groups: each legislator is granted the authority to act as the sole spokesperson for the party on a number of explicitly listed policy (sub)domains. Overstepping the boundaries of one’s spokespersonship is deeply frowned upon. Similar (in)formal rules do not exist within the Belgian parliamentary party groups. Both the Belgian and Dutch parliaments, further, have permanent committees mirroring the ministerial departments. While committees have extensive powers to rewrite, consolidate and split bills in the Belgian Parliament, their timetable is subject to recall by the plenary. Committees in the Dutch Parliament, on the other hand, control their timetable, but enjoy fewer rights in redrafting government proposals. (Döring 1995; Mattson and Strøm 1995) Parliamentary party group discipline in both parliaments is close to 100 per cent. Thus, it is the aim of the paper to demonstrate that legislators’ online self-presentations, in fact, reproduce these predictions on the basis of the electoral rules and parliamentary organisation. First, the concept of presentation of self is introduced and various self-presentational tactics that are at a legislator’s disposal are discussed. Second, focusing on the tactics of ingratiation and self-promotion different self-presentational styles are distinguished and confronted with the “thick description” strand of research on legislative roles.

2. The Concept of Presentation of Self When entering the presence of others, people attempt to control the information they disclose about their person. They typically set great score by how others perceive and value them and, as a result, will behave in ways that display particular desirable traits. This deceptively simple observation lies at the heart of Goffman’s concept of presentation of self. (Goffman 1959) In social psychology, the notion has been used interchangeably with the terms self-presentation and impression management.5 (Schlenker and Weigold 1992:136) Impression management research has largely concentrated on the interrelations between particular desirable impressions and various self-presentational instruments to create these impressions – a process Leary and Kowalski (1990) dubbed impression construction to separate it from the logically prior process of impression motivation that refers to the conditions under which people become motivated to create a particular impression. Other well-studied topics include the impact of, for instance, self-esteem on said strategies and the impact of self-presentations on self-concepts. (Metts and Grohskopf 2003:358) Five desirable traits, in particular, are central to people’s concerns, Jones and Pittman (1982) argue. People - and legislators more than most - endeavour to be thought of as likeable, competent, and worthy. On occasion, they may also benefit from appearing dangerous or helpless. That is, a person will engage in behaviours of ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation. Ingratiation is intended to make the other person like him/her as a person. Self-promotion forwards the claim that he/she is qualified and up to the job. Exemplification angles for the accolades of moral integrity, of honesty, and principledness. Supplication hopes to win the other’s sympathy and often more tangible assistance by downplaying

4

one’s abilities. Intimidation warns others of the dire consequences of going against the person’s wishes. (Lee et al. 1999; Ellis et al. 2002; Jones and Pittman 1982) Central to the process of representation, it seems, are the strategies of ingratiation and self-promotion. Voters think of elections in terms of selecting “good types”, Fearon (1999:68) argues, rather than sanctioning poor representatives for past transgressions. Good types are candidates who hold similar policy preferences, and who are honest and skilled. Earlier, Fenno (1978:57) had claimed that every legislator sought to impress upon his/her constituents a sense of qualification, identification (and empathy), and honesty.6 Moreover, observing talk-shows, Schütz (1997) fails to record any instances of intimidation or supplication by politicians. While both tactics are not unheard of in the political arena, they appear ill-advised for anyone seeking broad popular support and may easily backfire. The traits that legislators mostly ascribe to themselves are that they are qualified, experienced, and up to the job. In addition, they may emphasise their talents and know-how within various policy fields. On this point, there are few differences between the two assemblies. Legislators also accentuate their communicative skills (e.g. listening skills, social skills, negotiating skills …) and focus on their motivation and determination to work hard. One Flemish legislator, for instance, states that “when she believes in a particular cause, she completely and utterly goes for it, and tries to achieve good results”. Only a small number of legislators try to come off as a good person by presenting themselves as socially aware, caring and tolerant. Moral integrity and honesty are desirable character traits, but are not often claimed directly. While he did not downplay the importance of impressions of honesty, Fenno felt it was a quality that is best demonstrated, not claimed directly. Endorsements (i.e. quotes of support or praise) on the personal websites of the Flemish and Dutch legislators serve this purpose. One Dutch representative, for instance, quotes a former colleague: “X is a man with his heart in the right place”. 2.1. The Tactics of Ingratiation Legislators may seek to ingratiate themselves with different groups, employing different tactics. Chief among these groups are the local community – that is, legislators’ hometown or home province; socio-economic or demographic groups; and strong party identifiers. Legislators may also explicitly decline representing any local or functional interest, and instead appeal to the general public. Tactics range from subtle flattery to discussing issues of interest to particular groups and making explicit claims to represent them. 1. The first object of ingratiation is the local community. One in three legislators makes direct claims to represent, or promises to look after, the interests of the local community. Various Flemish legislators formulate it as their duty “to bring their hometown closer to Brussels”. One Dutch legislator states: “I will try to devote myself entirely to the quality of life in, and the vitality of, our countryside.” While provincial electoral districts encourage legislators in Flanders to identify with their municipality, Dutch legislators at most claim to represent the province because of the nation-wide electoral district. Promises of access and statements that emphasise service appear on one third of the personal websites. This is the case for both Flemish and Dutch legislators, although the practice of surgeries is more widespread in Flanders. Local issues are often raised in weblogs and parliamentary questions from the responsibilities of local office. This may explain why the discussion of local issues is far more common on the sites of Flemish legislators: the cumul des mandats is unusual in the Netherlands. This combination of jobs is also the reason why dedicating a section - prominently displayed on the home page of the website - to the local community is an almost exclusively Flemish phenomenon. Most common are utterances of a long-term commitment to the local community and the discussion of local issues. In their biographies, legislators in both countries often emphasise being native sons and daughters of the region. They refer to their parents’ and their own participation in local social organisations. On occasion, they employ expressions in the local dialect. Legislators who are not born and raised in the region they represent, often go to great lengths to prove their identification with the region. One Flemish Socialist Democrat set up a family tree in order to trace the roots of his family

5

name and connect these to the village he represents. Less than one fourth of the legislators make flattering statements about the local community on their websites. They praise the splendour and strength of their town, the kindness or joie de vivre of its population, and the historic and tourist assets of the region. Flemish legislators express more neutral statements about the local community, compared to the Dutch legislators. For instance, they give a lengthy description of the local community or frequently mention the name of the municipality, the geographic region or the province. Face-saving explanations vis-à-vis the local community are virtually absent. Legislators presumably prefer not to draw online attention to their failure to prevent policies disliked in the region and to forward explanations in personal meetings with constituents.

Table 1: Ingratiation with the local community (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Direct claims 36% 27% Promises of access and statements that emphasise service

39% 33%

Discussion of local issues 68% 29% Statements that convey a (long-time) commitment to the local community

54% 54%

Flattering statements about the local community

21% 23%

Multiple neutral statements about the local community

34% 13%

Face-saving explanations vis-à-vis local community

0% 6%

Section of homepage that refers to local community

42% 11%

2. Second, legislators may hope to court the support of functional groups in society. In particular, legislators promise to act in the interest of women, ethnic minorities, farmers, businesspeople, or young families. Table 2 indicates that direct claims to represent functional groups are more common among Dutch legislators. Survey research confirmed that a larger number of Dutch legislators (more than one in four), compared to legislators from the Nordic countries, find it important to represent the interests cultural minorities, women, and the elderly. (Thomassen and Andeweg 2004) In addition, legislators’ identification with functional groups is often indirect: when various issues that a legislator raises are tied together more by the group they benefit than the policy domain they belong to. Statements that emphasise service are less widespread among both Flemish and Dutch legislators. Again, identification with these functional groups is indicated more often by referring to one’s commitment to the group: one’s own membership of demographic groups and one’s participation in the relevant interest groups. One fourth of the Flemish representatives and one third of the Dutch representatives use this kind of functional ingratiation. For only some of the legislators, their social engagement stems from being a member of a socially-minded family. One Flemish Socialist, for instance, refers to the fact that she grew up in a council housing estate, and still enjoys a strong electoral support there.

Legislators from peripheral regions are more militant in defending their region’s interests. Even though survey data is not readily available to back that expectation, it is assumed that people in peripheral regions resent being discriminated against and will pressure their representatives to defend them. (Thomassen and Esaiasson 2006:226) Centre regions in the Netherlands include the provinces of Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, and Utrecht; in Flanders the provinces of Antwerpen, Oost-Vlaanderen and Vlaams Brabant. The other provinces are considered peripheral. In both countries, a simple Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirms the hypothesis: local ingratiation tactics are far more common among legislators representing peripheral regions. Peripheral regions do not affect any of the other ingratiation strategies, moreover.7

6

Table 2: Ingratiation with social-economic and demographic groups (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Direct claims 11% 28% Promises of access and statements that emphasise service

14% 13%

Issues cluster round functional groups

25% 30%

Commitment to associations 25% 34% Family commitment to associations

5% 10%

Flattering statements about functional groups

2% 7%

Multiple neutral statements about functional groups

13% 26%

Face-saving explanations vis-à-vis functional groups

0% 5%

3. Third, legislators may turn to the primary constituency, demonstrating their long-term commitment to the party. Party labels constitute important cues for voters. In addition, parties play an important role in recruiting and selecting candidates. From this perspective, it seems advisable for legislators to convey a sense of commitment to the party, its leaders, members, and strong identifiers. 44 per cent of the Flemish and 43 per cent of the Dutch representatives express warm feelings with regard to party leaders and the party faithful, or identify with organisations of the same ideological stance. One Liberal, for instance, underlines his close friendship with the former Prime Minister, and describes how they both grew up together in the same town having the same ideals. One in three legislators displays his/her credentials discussing the party’s core set of beliefs at length. Dutch Christian-Democrats, for instance, often testify how their faith is guiding their steps in life and politics. Liberals in both countries reserve a similar position to the principles of liberty and individual responsibility. Direct claims to represent the party and flattering statements about party identifiers are absent from the personal websites. Almost half of the legislators reveal their long-time activism within the party. Many a legislator extols some family member’s distinguished service to the party, in addition to their own in local or national party office and long-term activism in electoral campaigns. Promises of access and flattering statements are not common among Dutch and Flemish legislators.

Table 3: Ingratiation with party identifiers (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Direct claims 11% 11% Statements that convey commitment to politics and the party

44% 43%

Commitment to the party’s core set of beliefs

27% 38%

Expressions of long-time activism in the party

48% 43%

Promises of access and statements that emphasise service

2% 6%

Flattering statements about party identifiers

9% 2%

4. Fourth, when confronted with a heterogeneous district, legislators try to avoid taking sides. Instead, they may position themselves squarely in the corner of the general public (Fenno 1978; Mayhew 1974) and try to convey a sense of identification with ‘the people’ or ‘the country’.(see Table 4) Some legislators, for instance, explicitly refute to represent specific socio-economic or demographic groups. A Dutch legislator states: “I do not represent specific target groups. A

7

representative has the responsibility to weigh various interests against each other.” Others claim to represent the general interest, the interests of the country and the interests “of all people”. Most commonly legislators admit to lofty aspirations and the moral obligation as a representative to serve, and provide assistance to, the public. Flemish (38%) and Dutch (45%) legislators alike frequently mention they are honoured “to be of service to the people”, and they express their idea of politics as “a noble profession”. Almost 30 per cent of all representatives intend to demonstrate self-sacrificing behaviour by emphasising the importance of volunteer work for society. Yet, Fenno (1978) commented on congressmen’s tendency to “run for Congress by running against it” – later linked to the paradox of popular distrust of the institution and trust of individual congressmen. (Parker and Davidson 1979) Similarly, utterances intended to distance oneself from politics and politicians are quite common, and appear on one in four websites. Legislators denounce scandals and abuse by politicians. They hasten to point out that politics was not important in the family they grew up in, or admit having had reservations before embarking on a political career. Some even express negative statements about out-groups. Others vilify politicians, the media and the intelligentsia in general. However, this populist communication strategy (Jagers and Walgrave 2005) does not occur often on personal websites, and it is predominantly used by legislators of the Flemish far right party Vlaams Belang.

Table 4: Ingratiation with the general public (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Direct claims 20% 20% Promises of access and statements that emphasise service

38% 45%

Statements that intend to demonstrate self-sacrificing behaviour and commitment

29% 28%

Multiple neutral statements about the public

9% 7%

Statements that distance oneself from politics and politicians

25% 26%

Negative statements about out-groups

11% 4%

Only lowest common denominator issues are discussed, in order to express opinion conformity

7% 2%

The above-mentioned findings give a first indication of the different tactics and strategies legislators use to communicate a sense of identification with the four groups. In a second phase, the level of importance of each type of ingratiation was measured by means of four simple 3-point scales. A legislator who makes a direct claim to represent his/her municipality in Brussels, who underlines the fact that he/she has been living in the same town his entire life, and who, in addition, discusses some local issues on his/her website scores 2 on the ‘local identification’-scale. A second legislator who simply praises the hospitality of the people in his/her hometown, scores 1 on the same scale. A third legislator who makes reference to none of the previously mentioned items, scores 0. Each focus of ingratiation is scored on a separate scale. Table 5 demonstrates the interrelationship between local and functional identification in Belgium and in the Netherlands. The two types are present in the two countries, indicating that the national electoral district does not discourage Dutch legislators from seeking identification with the local community. However, the Flemish legislators have a more outspoken local profile, with 71 per cent scoring full points on the local identification scale. The results further point out that a high score on one scale does not necessarily imply a low score on the other scale. Or differently put: local identification and functional identification are not mutually exclusive.

8

Table 5: Interrelationship between local and functional identification (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Functional

Local 0 1 2 N

0 5% 0% 5% 6 11% 1 14% 2% 2% 10 18% 2 38% 18% 16% 40 71%

N 32 11 13 56 57% 20% 23% 100% Netherlands, the Functional Local 0 1 2 N

0 13% 9% 11% 27 33% 1 20% 5% 9% 27 33% 2 10% 12% 12% 28 34%

N 35 21 26 82

43% 26% 32% 100%

Figure 1 points out the mean party positions on local ingratiation (X axis) and on functional ingratiation (Y axis). Caution in interpreting these mean positions is warranted: the variance within parties on most of these ingratiation scales is often as large as the variance between parties. Nonetheless, the Dutch parties (in bold print) tend to produce higher scores on functional representation, but lower scores on local ingratiation, compared to their Flemish counterparts (Vlaams Belang, CD&V, SP.A, Open VLD and Groen!). The three traditional Flemish parties (VLD, SP.A and CD&V) in particular attain high levels of local ingratiation. This is not surprising, given the fact that these parties can rely on strong local party branches. The Flemish parties however, display little functional ingratiation. Especially the populist-right party Vlaams Belang displays a low level of functional ingratiation. This results from their aversion to carve up society into various subgroups, and their fear to overlook what is in the general interest of the people.

Figure 1: The interrelationship between local and functional ingratiation (mean party positions)

In addition, a majority of the Flemish and Dutch legislators conveys a sense of identification with party identifiers and with the general public.(Table 6) Both countries attain a strikingly similar level of identification with these two groups. Most legislators do make a minimal reference to their party, mention they are honoured to be a representative, and express their general commitment to the party or to politics. The mean party positions, displayed in figure 2, reconfirm the identification legislators of Vlaams Belang seek with the general public.

CD&V

Groen!

VLD

SP.A

Vlaams Belang

CDA

VVD

PvdA

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Local ingratiation

Fu

nc

tio

na

l in

gra

tiati

on

9

Table 6: Interrelationship between party and general public identification (in per cent)

Flanders General public Party 0 1 2 N

0 14% 5% 5% 14 25% 1 11% 23% 14% 27 48% 2 4% 9% 14% 15 27%

N 16 21 19 56 29% 38% 34% 100% Netherlands, the General public Party 0 1 2 N

0 15% 11% 2% 22 27% 1 10% 24% 12% 38 46% 2 5% 15% 6% 21 26%

N 23 41 17 82 28% 50% 21% 100%

Figure 2: The interrelationship between party and general public ingratiation (mean party positions)

2.2. The Tactics of Self-Promotion Legislators will move on to behaviours of self-promotion in order to convince their (sub)constituencies they are qualified and up to the job. Some legislators, referred to by Searing (1994) as specialists, seek to demonstrate their qualification in a particular policy domain. Other legislators, labelled generalists, derive their qualification for the job from their ability to participate in a discussion on any topic and say something meaningful. Table 7 presents the various tactics the Dutch and Flemish legislators use to substantiate their competence in a particular policy domain. Legislators are primarily engaged in reacting to other parties’ positions on the ‘hot issues’ of the moment, but only within their own field of experience. This is particularly the case for the Dutch representatives: up to 77 per cent of them invest in this kind of self-promotion. Legislators in both countries present policy briefs to the population, discussing recent developments or future prospects within their policy domain. Some legislators eagerly discuss the technical details of legislative proposals on a limited range of related issues, but this is less common among the Flemish legislators. Few representatives clearly indicate their specialisation by dedicating a section of the homepage to it. A ‘true’ specialist, however, aims to leave his mark on the policy domain. He discusses his activities from the viewpoint of the results he has achieved. We return to these types of ‘credit claiming’ below.

CD&V

Groen!

SP.A

Vlaams Belang

CDA

VVD

PvdA

VLD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Ingratiation with party identifiers

Ing

rati

ati

on

wit

h t

he g

en

era

l p

ub

lic

10

Table 7: Specialist self-promotion (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Discussion of ‘hot issues’ of the moment within field of experience

45% 77%

Formulation of policy briefs 21% 37% Aim to change technical details of legislation

11% 26%

Section of homepage refers to specialisation

11% 12%

Generalists primarily hope to be thought of as skilful debaters, equipped with an agile and versatile mind. Their competence reveals a specific culture, one of indexical beliefs. (Gambetta 1999) Indexical beliefs indicate that a person doing something well, is expected to do another just as well – even if the skills required are not related. Ignorance in one area, on the other hand, is taken to be a lack of culture and finesse. Some legislators restrict their posts to legislative proposals under consideration on a wide variety of topics. Both Flemish and Dutch representatives try to attract attention by mentioning the high number of parliamentary questions they have on their account, but not by considering at length the debates in parliament.8 However, a ‘true’ generalist prefers to play his part in the media by commenting on current ‘hot topics’ in the news or on the political strategies of parties. A weblog appears particularly suited to this ambition. Only a minority of representatives offer their viewpoints on every controversy that graces the media agenda.

Table 8: Generalist self-promotion (in per cent of websites)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Parliamentary questions 36% 23% Discussion of debates in parliament

2% 9%

Stance in the topical (media)debates of the moment

21% 13%

In order to analyse the results for the Flemish and Dutch legislators and measure their levels of self-promotion, two 3-point scales were created. On the one hand, the highest score on the specialist scale reveals a legislator who mentions less than three policy domains on his website, who clearly indicates his specialisation, and favourably discusses in addition some policy briefs regarding these issues or his attempts to change policy throughout his legislative work. A legislator who mentions three up to five policy domains and only discusses the ‘hot topics’ within his field of experience, scores 1 on the specialist scale. Legislators with no, or on the contrary with more than five, policy domains get a low score on the same scale. On the other hand, a low score on the generalist scale indicates a legislator who concentrates on two or fewer policy domains, or a legislator who is not interested in discussing policy issues. A legislator who points out more than three issues, gets a score of one on the generalist scale. The same legislator is awarded the highest score when he/she, in addition, takes a stance in the topical (media)debates of the moment, and concentrates on asking questions in Parliament rather than formulating policy proposals. Legislators with high scores on the generalist scale (score generalist = 2) or specialist scale (score specialist = 2) do not necessarily comply with all of the previously mentioned criteria. However, a high score only indicates that a legislator meets some necessary standards, and can therefore be labelled ‘specialist’ or ‘generalist’. The results of the analyses are reproduced in table 9.

11

Table 9: Interrelationship between specialists and generalists (in per cent)

Flanders Generalist

Specialist 0 1 2 N 0 11% 9% 14% 19 34% 1 16% 11% 11% 21 38% 2 20% 9% 0% 16 29%

N 26 16 14 56 46% 29% 25% 100% Netherlands, the Generalist

Specialist 0 1 2 N 0 10% 2% 2 % 12 15% 1 16% 5% 2% 19 23% 2 40% 21% 1% 51 62%

N 54 23 5 82 66% 28% 6% 100%

Generalists are rather scarce (Searing 1995), particularly in the Netherlands where a strict division of labour encourages members of the Second Chamber to act as specialists in a particular policy sub-domain. An overview of the mean party positions confirms this (figure 3). The Dutch parties (in bold print) demonstrate high levels of specialisation, combined with low levels of generalist self-promotion. The Flemish parties find themselves at the centre of the figure, with moderate levels of specialist and generalist self-promotion. The seemingly outlier position of the Flemish green party Groen! can be partially explained by its low number of legislators. But green legislators also tend to focus on a limited number of (party) issues (e.g. the climate and the environment). Both cases of Flanders and the Netherlands indicate that the presence (or absence) of one type of self-promotion does not automatically exclude (or include) the other. However, a high score on both types of self-promotion (score generalist = 2 and score specialist = 2) is analytically unlikely. One Dutch Member constitutes an exception to this rule.

Figure 3: The interrelationship between specialist and generalist self-promotion: mean party positions

Discussing legislative anchors – that is, the things legislators enjoy and strive for in their professional life – Bernick (2001) makes the distinction between technical and managerial competency. Frequently, legislators buttress their claims of specialisation by pointing out relevant prior job experiences ‘in the field’ (e.g. one legislator emphasises how being a nurse for several years has enabled her to make some distinct contributions to the policy domain of public health) or doing research on the topic. This is especially common among Dutch legislators. On the other hand, legislators prefer to convey their people’s skills – displaying a knack for leading people and

CD&V

Groen!

VLD

SP.A

Vlaams Belang

CDA

VVD

PvdA

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Specialist

Gen

era

lis

t

12

decision-making. Although this is a particularly common occurrence for businesspeople, who refer to their managerial experience in business companies or in large national and international organisations (e.g. Amnesty International), it is also apparent among local officials and university professors. Dutch representatives in particular make reference to the agricultural company or law firm they own. Related to this managerial competency is a tendency to emphasise the ability to get results, to get things done. Mayhew (1974) identified this kind of credit claiming as one of three basic activities all congressmen engage in. He also recognised the difficulties inherent to credit-claiming for legislation: laws are collective goods, even more so in systems with strong parties. In that respect, local credit claiming is less difficult. However, a minority of legislators is not discouraged from claiming responsibility for particular policy outputs: a bill of their hand may have it to the books; or their diligent lobbying may have swayed the minister involved. Former party leaders give an overview of their successful efforts to reform the party, and claim their personal contributions to the electoral success of the party. While national credit claiming is more widespread among the Dutch legislators, local credit claiming is more common in Flanders. Especially mayors do not turn down the opportunity to discuss at length their realisations at the local level. Other legislators claim credit for achieving on the national level results that are particularly rewarding for the local community.

3. Self-Presentational Strategies and Role Conceptions

How legislators choose to present their person and their work online is revealing of their role conceptions. That is, legislators’ online self-presentations constitute speech acts. As such, they can be considered characteristic behaviour related to legislators’ motivational core of career goals and emotional incentives – if not exactly part of the role itself. (Searing 1994) Moreover, they create expectations and obligations: ill-considered promises and unchecked self-glorification are unlikely to inspire much trust among voters. To be effective, claims of desirable traits need to be credible. To be believable, claims must not contradict known facts. (Schlenker and Weigold 1992:144) Congressmen’s self-presentational home style and their role conception are intimately interrelated in a variety of manners, Fenno (1978:218) observed. Some congressmen, for instance, build their home style on their position of influence on Capitol Hill. Also, the groups whose backing congressmen seek when considering legislation tend to resemble those supporting them in primaries and elections. Finally, promises of access and early policy commitments to staunch supporters at home have important repercussions once elected. Legislators’ self-presentational strategies can be identified, combining the two dimensions of ingratiation and self-promotion. Ingratiation tactics and self-promotion are not mutually exclusive – but there is a tension between the two: unchecked self-glorification is not very ingratiating. (Godfrey, Jones, and Lord 1986) On the one hand, the self-promotion dimension adopts Searing’s (1994) thick descriptions of specialists versus generalists. On the other hand, the ingratiation dimension is inspired by Fenno’s (1978) seminal work on home styles. Central to congressmen’s home style is the distinction between a person-to-person and an issue-oriented approach. But it is not merely the amount of time spent discussing issues that separates Congressman C’s issue-independence from Congressman B’s local popularity. His national defence posture is central to the popular local boy’s home style. The issues, however, only serve to underline the congressman’s bond with constituents, conveying the message “I am one of you; I think like you do”. (Fenno 1978:73) In other words, these lowest common denominator issues are more of an ingratiation tactic. Other traits, Fenno draws attention to, in order to single out sub-types include a service-oriented approach relying on casework and local projects; the level of intimacy with constituents; and a position of authority in the (local) community. Translating home styles to the British House of Commons, Cain, Ferejohn and Fiorina (1979) disregarded most of these secondary traits and added a reluctant, instrumental motivation to engage in constituency service for fear of retribution at the polls, as well as some notion of legislative careers to separate the Cabinet minister from the young hopeful. French Members of Parliament, Costa and Kerrouche (2007) point out, perceive of their home style in similar terms. They identify a ceremonial part of the job that is close to the Fenno’s person-to-person style, as well as parts as defender of the region

13

and welfare assistant that bring to mind Searing’s distinction between local promoters and welfare officers. In addition, their actions not only amount to the redress of grievances, but also provide fuel to legislators’ work in Parliament: as mediators legislators look for national solutions to local problems. Because these typologies were developed for a single-member context, legislators’ identification is territorial almost by definition; functional representation would most likely be virtual representation too. In figure 4, the ingratiation axis displays the subtraction of the functional scale from the local scale: towards the left are found legislators who express identification with groups defined in territorial terms; towards the right those who seek to curry favour with functional groups. The self-promotion axis subtracts the specialist scale from the generalist scale: towards the top of the figure are legislators who demonstrate their versatility in a large number of policy domains; towards the bottom legislators who prefer to specialise in the policy domain(s) matching their committee assignment(s). In this manner, it is possible to identify four styles of self-presentation, that of the specialist, the generalist, the local member, and a fourth – that of the group representative – of which no empirical example was found in our selection. These styles are characterised by a singular focus on, respectively, ingratiation with the local community, on self-promotion as a specialist or generalist – with the exclusion of the other ingratiation and self-promotion tactics. One in three Flemish legislators, for instance, is a local member: he/she expresses a strong identification with the local community, all but ignoring their actions (if any) in Parliament. Appreciation for the scenic beauty of the region and the kindness of its inhabitants is a preferred topic for them. This style is virtually absent among Dutch legislators. Instead, one in four Dutch legislators prefers to discuss their legislative work as a specialist: discussing developments within a limited policy domain, presenting elaborate policy briefs, pressuring and cajoling the minister to alter minute details in the legislation. Alternatively, that style fails to appeal to Flemish legislators. In both countries, generalists who do not seek ingratiation with the local community, nor with functional groups are equally exceptional. This is something of a surprise given the timing of our study: throughout the nine-month government formation process, generalists would be expected to find plenty of fodder for their questions and weblogs. After the axes have been defined, the quadrants may, then, serve to identify four more self-presentational strategies – each combining high scores on two of the four poles mentioned above. The top left quadrant harbours local-generalists: legislators who take up issues that rank high among local communities – irrespective of policy domain. The scarcity of generalists and local members in general in the Netherlands, makes this an unlikely combination for them. Yet, one in eight Flemish legislators fits the pattern. For the most part, they combine leadership positions at the local and national level – whether they use their local position to affect decision-making on the national level, or exploit their national renown to carry the district, is a moot point. Functional-generalists are to be found in the top right quadrant. Representation of demographic groups ties together these legislators’ actions in wide ranging policy domains. Again, as generalists are all but absent from the Dutch Parliament and group representatives from the Belgian Parliament, no legislators who chose this particular style could be found in the selection. In the bottom right quadrant, functional-specialists claim to represent a particular socio-economic group, workers for instance, and were successful in securing a seat on the relevant committee. From that position, they focus almost exclusively on the policy domain of interest to their narrow sub-constituency. About one in five Dutch legislators are functional-specialists – in Flanders they are but four (7 per cent). Still, those four claim to represent women, ethnic minorities, and workers. Ethnic minorities and women are also the groups that Dutch functional-specialists seek to court most often. Other functional groups courted include police officers, teachers, senior citizens and the underprivileged. Representatives of farmers and businesspeople are something of an exception: because of their bond with their (native) soil they tend to identify strongly with the geographical region, in addition to their functional focus. As a result, they gravitate to the bottom left quadrant of the local-specialists. Either local communities are sufficiently homogeneous that one policy domain comes to dominate politics in the area, or the legislative organisation provides legislators with incentives to specialise – irrespective of the sub-constituencies whose vote they need to

14

court. This particular style is equally popular in both countries: about one in ten legislators’ self-presentational strategy fits the description.

Figure 4: Ingratiation and Self-Promotion

CD&V

Groen!

VLD

SP.A

Vlaams Belang

VVDPvdA

Local Generalist

Local SpecialistParty Specialist

Populist

CDA

Indistinct

Local Member

Functional Specialist

Generalist

Specialist

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Ingratiation

Se

lf-Pro

mo

tion

Figure 4, further, displays the mean positions on both the ingratiation and self-promotion axes of all local members, specialists, generalists, local specialists, functional specialists, and local generalists. That is, of all legislators fitting the eight descriptions above the mean score on the local-functional ingratiation and generalist-specialist self-promotion styles were computed. They, thus, reflect empirical rather than theoretical positions. Also included in figure 4 are the party mean positions should be interpreted with caution. It is striking, however, that all parties but one are to be found in the local-specialist quadrant. One cluster of parties, including all Dutch parties and the Flemish green party, are close to the centre of the ingratiation axis: they define their supporting sub-constituencies only marginally more in territorial terms. The Flemish liberals and Christian-democrats, on the other hand, occupy a similar position near the other axis, emphasising local identification over specialisation. This illustrates the conclusion that while Flemish legislators prefer voters to like them, Dutch legislators want to appear qualified. The far right Vlaams Belang legislators, finally, tend to employ their weblogs to comment on the political situation of the moment – helped obviously in that regard by the nine-month government formation process. Party mean positions, however, hide more than they reveal. Some legislators escape categorisation in this manner, however. It was demonstrated earlier that ingratiation styles may not be directed at the local community or functional groups, but may target strong party identifiers and the general public. Andeweg (1997:116) criticised Searing for disregarding the partisan role. Searing (1994:486, note16) perceived of the role as a disposition that can be applied in any role. Their strong identification with the party is predominant on the websites of eleven legislators in our selection, however. Because these are mostly Dutch legislators, they may be more aptly labelled party-specialists – thus, conforming to the dictates of division of labour so predominant in the Second Chamber. Similarly, populists tend to be generalists: their identification with the general public is best served by a broad policy interest. In Belgium, this category comprises five legislators, all belonging to the Flemish right-wing populist party Vlaams Belang. In the Dutch Second Chamber, we only found two populists, both member of the VVD. However, it should be noted that we did not code the MPs representing the anti-Islamic party of Geert Wilders (PVV). Finally, near the centre of the figure legislators of a mixed disposition may be found, but mostly legislators who have neglected their homepages.

15

Table 10: Role Conceptions (in per cent)

Flanders Netherlands, the

Axes

Local Member 32% 5% Specialist 7% 26% Generalist 7% 5% Quadrants Local Specialist 12% 14% Local Generalist 11% 1% Functional Specialist 7% 18% Other Party Specialist 4% 11% Populist 9% 2%

Indistinct Profiles 11% 18% N 56 82

3.1. The Local Member Representative A combines his parliamentary office with a local executive office in one of the major Flemish cities. “He is an ardent advocate and promoter of the interests of [his city] in the Chamber.” He “especially strives for a tidy, safe and enjoyable city”, devoting a separate section to his local achievements. He goes to great lengths to claim personal credit for making his city “the cosiest of Flanders”. He “improved housing conditions in degenerated neighbourhoods, took measures to protect the inhabitants from flooding and renewed the urban lighting, combining a magical atmosphere with a rational use of energy”. Representative A is born and raised in town and is still active in many local associations. At the age of 51, he is still on the board of the local sea scouts. Furthermore, he dedicates himself “with devotion” to charity events. This social commitment is part of his “political strategy” in which “listening to the people, attending barbecues and other feasts and shaking numerous hands” play a preponderant role. Hence, he pursues a policy “that gives priority to the concerns of the people”. In Parliament he explicitly chose to become a member of the committee responsible for the matters that match his local powers, trying to bridge his duties and activities on both levels. “Especially his work behind the scenes and his excellent contacts with his colleagues, make sure that [his town] gets what it is entitled to”. So, Representative A – who is “valued by friend and foe for his high diplomatic calibre” – sees it as his duty to use his extensive network to intervene in local files. Though one could expect his private bills and written/oral questions to be mainly devoted to local interests, this is not the case. 3.2. The Specialist Following her master in Public Administration, Representative B worked for four years on a dissertation concerning the care of drug addicts in the Netherlands. After her promotion, she became a lecturer at the Social Science Faculty of the University of Tilburg. Following the 2002 elections, she entered the Second Chamber. In agreement with her research skills, she is chiefly concerned with the social aspects of judicial policy and focuses in particular on the treatment of drug addicts and the follow-up of psychiatrical delinquents who are likely to relapse. As a “hands-on expert”, she is also the parliamentary party group’s spokeswoman on research policy. Today, “she still gets a lot of pleasure out of the portfolio that she was asked to manage in the Chamber”. According to Representative B, “real problems can only be solved when things are seen in connection with one another instead of reacting to incidents”. Her academic background incites her to oppose politicians’ inclination “to be swayed by the issues of the day”. Consequently, she enjoys “reading up” on her subject matters and “thinking about how things can change for the best”. On her site, she outlines positions using long and detailed policy notes. In addition, Representative B gives a comprehensive overview of her oral and written parliamentary questions and interventions. By proposing concrete measures in her policy domains, she tries to influence the details of policy. For instance, she drew the Minister’s attention to the “shortages in the enforcement of the regulation regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages in night stores” and required him to “undertake action”. To ameliorate the quality of

16

her legislative work, she often participates in party study groups and invests a lot of time paying working visits to crisis facilities for drug addicts, to community centres of the Salvation Army, and to various other social amenities. Furthermore, she tries very hard to maintain contact with the field by talking to “a lot of parents who are struggling with their addicted child and who are in search of a way out”. 3.3. The Generalist Representative C “took the interest for politics in with his mother’s milk and always nourished the ambition to become a representative of the people”. Before his successful candidacy in 2002, he was “a practising veterinary in heart and soul”. Logically, his party made him spokesman for biotechnology, animal well-being and animal health. Nevertheless, he holds the opinion that “a member of the Second Chamber has to be multifunctional”. Since his inauguration, he threw himself on the field of foreign politics. In addition, he is also entrusted with the party’s communication on European policy and medical ethics. “This marvellous, versatile portfolio” enables him to pursue the fulfilment of his “ideals”. Thus, his site is a long enumeration of parliamentary questions, motions and interventions concerning these five themes. Under the heading “Topical Subjects”, Representative C again informs the visitor about his activities through articles published in the national and international press. Furthermore, he maintains a well-updated weblog in which he writes about his doings and experiences. He characterises himself as a hard-working politician and grasps every opportunity to mention that he “debated non-stop from early in the morning until late in the evening”. He fully takes pleasure in the political game and makes no secret of his delight when just hís motion is adopted. Moreover, he gloats when “other politicians introduce several motions, with a lot of noise, without being able to pass a single one”. The legislator also knows how to increase the pressure on the executive. He adjourned a vote on a motion because the authorised Minister promised him to implement his idea. “If the Minister of Justice resists”, he will put his motion to the vote anyway. Besides his achievements, he also brags about his numerous foreign missions. As chairman of the Foreign Affairs standing committee, he is keen to emphasise his encounters with the great of the earth. He speaks highly of his “extremely open discussion” with President Bashar al-Assad about the violation of human rights in Syria. Finally, Representative C, considers it “essential not only to be active in The Hague or abroad, but also in the country”. He hopes that his site will incite his fellow citizens to “invite him for a working visit, a lecture or even an ordinary conversation at the kitchen table. Undoubtedly, there is plenty to talk about!” 3.4. The Local Specialist Representative D promotes the interests of his home area in his parliamentary work. Despite being the party’s spokesman of all issues relating to the European Union, he dedicates a separate section of his personal website to his legislative output that benefits his region. Representative D “attaches great importance to the peripheral areas” and advocates mainly important economic issues by asking parliamentary questions and introducing motions. He openly claims credit for sizeable investments in the regional airport and for the broadening of a regional highway. To stay informed about the ins and outs of the regional economy, he spends a lot of time paying working visits to plants and companies. In addition, he tries to keep in touch with the inhabitants of his region by attending and organising debate evenings to emphasise his local commitment. 3.5. The Local Generalist Not all legislators with a pronounced local focus regard it as their central objective to promote the (economic) interests of their city or region. Using quotes of support and praise, Representative E characterises himself as an “appreciated politician” who is “an asset for his province and in particular for his city”. “The strong shoulders supporting the local [party] are undoubtedly his. He is our figurehead and does his utmost to defend our interests.” Hence, his hometown features prominently on his website. He is the chairman of the city council, a loyal member of a local service club and even the honorary chairman of the local North Sea cycling club. In contrast with the previous two legislators, he opts for a more personal style. On his website, he uses the baseline “Always @ctive for you!”. Consequently, the Member organises and solicits a lot of direct contact with his constituents. To him, casework is not a “swear word” and

17

by no means equals “political interference” or “favouritism”. As a representative, he considers it his duty to advise and assist the citizens. “Have you got any questions or difficulties, are you confronted with the consequences of legislation that is far too complex or erroneous … do not hesitate and appeal to me. Within the limits of what is possible and authorised, together we will try to find a solution.” This commitment becomes evident in intensive casework during three full days a week. Besides this policy of local presence, Representative E is quite active in Parliament. He does not concentrate his efforts on a certain policy domain, but takes up positions on the most diverse issues, ranging from tax cuts to the military presence in Afghanistan. He does not limit himself to expressing opinions on these current hot topics, but supplements them with legislative initiatives he took or is about to take. As could be expected, the Member considers the questioning of Ministers and intervening in debates the most effective parliamentary instruments. 3.6. The Functional Specialist Representative F is the owner of two agricultural enterprises: a dairy cattle farm and an organic meat company. Before his inauguration in the Dutch Second Chamber, he held several high positions in agricultural and horticultural organisations. Representative F’s wish to defend the interests of the rural areas and its inhabitants immediately catches the eye. Surrounded by cows, on his banner, he states: “Don’t abandon the countryside, its people and animals!”. His colleagues in the dairy cattle sector identify with him and consider him the promoter of their interests, he claims, because in his own farms, he personally experiences the effects of political decision-making. He “directly has to face the facts and that is not always pleasant”. Therefore he emphasises to his grassroots support that he will see to provide “enough opportunities for the development of the Dutch dairy cattle industry”. Not surprisingly, his parliamentary questions, motions and contributions arise from his dedication to the agricultural sector. In addition, Representative F strives to protect the well-being of animals, posting eight extensive and technical files concerning, for instance, animal diseases and the bio industry’s responsibility for the spread of avian influenza. “Society has a collective responsibility to treat animals respectfully” and therefore he even submitted a private bill regarding the prohibition of bestiality and animal pornography. In 2005, he was nominated “animal protector of the year” due to his “structural endeavours for the concerns of animals”. Even today, he keeps on referring to this honorary title. Representative F also claims credit for his achievements in Parliament. “[As a result of a motion about the liberalisation of the manure law for environmentally friendly farmers] The policy will be adjusted and that is good news for the dairy cattle farmers who strive for sustainable development”. Also his private bill concerning the import ban of seal products was integrally adopted by the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. 3.7. The Party Specialist Within his parliamentary party group, Representative G is responsible for policies related to the climate change and sustainable energy. Before the start of his political career, he worked for Greenpeace, at the Department of Climate and Energy, and then became the managing director of a green energy company. On his website he ventilates his opinions and takes stands on current ‘hot topics’ within both policy domains. Besides this, he devotes a separate section to “newspaper reports and other media performances in which he plays a role”. Representative G is very active in Parliament and presents a thorough description of his parliamentary questions, resolutions and contributions. It is his intention “to alter the policy of the government, if possible on the outlines and if necessary on the details”. In view of that, he fulminates against other politicians who put down “absurd motions”, because “proposal overkill blunts the sharpest weapon of Parliament”. The Member is also very concerned with the future of his party. He pleads for a “sharper leftist line on subjects that are traditionally important to social-democrats: the free market system, the income gap and the consumer society”. In a critical analysis of his own party, he reproaches his colleagues, “that they have become unrecognisable due to the strong identification with the administrative culture of The Hague, instead of being committed to the problems of the ordinary people”. The party “needs representatives who have the courage of their convictions and who are willing to stick out their necks”. In his view, they can no longer avoid delicate issues, such as the integration of foreigners. “The old dogma that deprivation can only have socio-economic and never cultural or religious roots needs to be abandoned”. Representative G still considers “the

18

core concepts of equality, justice and solidarity, the indestructible foundation of social-democracy”. Hence, he favours “devoting less attention to technical and administrative politics and reinvesting in a strong morally charged story”. 3.8. The Populist On his weblog, Representative H, promises not to annoy visitors with pictures portraying his family. He assumes that “visitors are more interested in politics, than in the ins and outs of his person”. He regards it as his duty to use his acquired experience to judge politics in general”. Hence, he uses his site “to express his personal points of view, his remarks, etc. with regard to the society in which we live”. In his columns, he almost exclusively reacts to current political events and other hot topics. Often, he comments on quotes taken from newspaper articles. Representative H discusses a wide variety of topics. For instance, more than once he opposes the Belgian monarchy. “Life is expensive and people lose purchasing power”. “So it is time to index the income of the royal family”, he jests. He is also very interested in Kosovo’s process of independence. “The country of 2.2 million inhabitants secedes from Serbia and nobody of Flanders’ well-meaning left says anything about it. This contrasts sharply with their reaction when someone mentions the possible independence of Flanders (circa 6 million inhabitants). Then, that desire for independence boils down to … turning inwards, cutting oneself off from the rest of the world, etc.”. The legislator calls himself a Flemish nationalist and it is his opinion that “the Flemish people is threatened in its identity”. He stands up for Flanders by opposing immigrants and especially French-speaking Belgians. According to him, Flemish nationalism is a “sound reaction against the wrong that was done to the Flemings by the French-speaking inhabitants since 1830”. Time and again “the Walloon minority has imposed its will on the Flemish majority”. He especially fulminates against “the homey elite club of Flemish intellectuals […] who – in politics – systematically take the side of the French-speaking and resist any step in the direction of more Flemish autonomy”. Representative H also gives the “Flemish quality press” a real roasting. He accuses them of “censorship” against him and his party. He is also irritated by “the way in which the Flemish quality press hugs a Francophile and pretentious Brussels newspaper. That daily conducts a permanent hatred campaign against Flanders and is not afraid to use any means, not even the most vicious, to attack the Flemings”. 3.9. Indistinct Profiles The study reveals that, at the beginning of 2008, virtually 30 per cent of Dutch and Flemish legislators are still not active in cyberspace. Hence, we are unable to pronounce on the role orientation of the representatives who have not yet embraced the new medium. However, it is not unthinkable that the real ‘welfare officers’, who consider the redress of grievances one of their chief occupations, show little interest in, nor draw a lot of benefit from the maintenance of a personal homepage. That might be the reason why so few legislators advertise their surgeries on their website. Among those maintaining a site, not every legislator turned out to have a distinct profile. Here, we discern three categories. In the first group we find representatives with extremely minimal websites. Though they seem to value their presence on the world-wide web, they do not develop their site. Due to the lack of codeable information, it is impossible to identify their role. A second category encompasses legislators who attach a lot of importance to the new information channel. They feel the urge to provide visitors to the site with a maximum of information about themselves, their representational tasks, and parliamentary activities. Everything seems equally important and, therefore, the contours of their profile dilute. For instance, a handful of representatives attaches the same value to their local commitment as to their engagement in favour of a functional sub-constituency. Finally, the last set of legislators employs their webpages (nearly) exclusively for electoral purposes. They advertise their election program and promises and offer the surfer a detailed survey of their campaign activities. Such campaign sites, in particular those of freshmen, do not allow us to draw conclusions about the representatives’ role

19

choice. In consequence of the proximity of the June 2007 federal elections, it is not surprising that we found most examples of this category in Flanders.

4. Conclusion The concept of ‘presentation of self’ in political science is best understood in terms of the five different strategies legislators appeal to in order to induce a particular impression with others. These five strategies consist of ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, supplication and intimidation. Ingratiation and self-promotion, however, seem the most important. The former refers to the tactics legislators convey in order to be liked by one (or various) groups. The latter helps legislators to prove they are qualified, and up to the job. Our study of the personal websites of the Flemish and Dutch representatives tries to bring together both self-presentational strategies in order to reveal the role orientations of the legislators. Let us now summarize the main findings of this study. First, both Flemish and Dutch legislators ingratiate themselves with the local community, functional groups, party identifiers and/or the general public. However, Flemish legislators attach more value to their local embedment, while their Dutch colleagues seek to curry favour with functional groups. In addition, minimal levels of ingratiation with party identifiers and the general public are common in both countries. Second, generalist self-promotion is rather scarce, especially among Dutch members of the Second Chamber. Due to the strict division of labour, they are –more than Flemish legislators- likely to demonstrate higher levels of policy specialisation. Third, when combining the two dimensions of ingratiation and self-promotion, legislators’ role conceptions can be uncovered. Flemish representatives are inclined towards representational roles that emphasise their local commitment (local member, local specialist and local generalist). Dutch legislators, by contrast, are more likely to adopt role orientations that accentuate their tendency towards policy specialisation (specialist, functional specialist and party specialist). Roles adopted by legislators who prefer to be active on a wide array of policy domains (generalist and populist) are quite uncommon in both countries. The preliminary finding that legislators from peripheral regions in both countries more often employ self-presentational styles focusing on ingratiation with the local community offers suggestions for further research. With regard to territorial representation in the Netherlands, Thomassen and Esaisson (2006:225-6) pointed in addition to party nomination processes. The more inclusive the process, the more advantageous ingratiation tactics aimed at functional groups become, as do tactics aimed at party identifiers. The more decentralised the process, the more legislators turn to a territorial sub-constituency. (Rahat and Hazan 2001) Others have stressed the path dependencies of prior career trajectories and congressional careers. Fenno (1978) first demonstrated how legislative and constituency careers are intertwined. Early in their careers congressmen look after their district. As their seniority in Congress increases, they take up more tasks and responsibilities in the legislature. As a result, attention for the district wanes and they simply hope to retain the support they have. That pattern was later found among British Members of Parliament as well. (Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1986) Finally, legislators that started out at the local level are expected to focus more on local ingratiation. Colombian legislators, Crisp and Desposato (2004) explained, try to build on and expand pockets of personal support achieved earlier in their career, while at the same time avoiding competitors’ strongholds. Similarly, Brazilian legislators that started their career on the local level strive to build personal bailiwicks concentrated around their hometown, while former businessmen and bureaucrats attempt to buy support where it is available and end up with more scattered constituencies. (Ames 1995) This also requires an additional data collection, including Francophone members of the federal Parliament, and members of the regional parliaments.

20

References: Ames, Bary (1995). ‘Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation’, American Journal of

Political Science. 39:2, 406-33. Andeweg, Rudy (2003). ‘Beyond Representativeness? Trends in Political Representation’, European Review.

11:2, 147-61. Bernick, Lee (2001). ‘Anchoring Legislative Careers’, Legislative Studies Quarterly. 26:1, 123-43. Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John and Morris Fiorina (1979). ‘The House is not a Home: British MPs in their

Constituencies’, Legislative Studies Quarterly. 4:4, 501-23. Carey, John and Matthew Shugart (1995). ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: a Rank Ordering of

Electoral Formulas’, Electoral Studies. 14:4, 417-39. Carter, M. (1999). ‘Speaking Up in the Internet Age: Use and Value of Constituent Email and

Congressional Websites’, Parliamentary Affairs. 52:3, 464-79. Chappelet, Jean-Loup (2004). ‘The Appropriation of e-mail and the Internet by members of the Swiss

Parliament’, Information Polity. 9:1, 89-102. Cook, Timothy (1986). ‘House Members as Newsmakers: The Effects of Televising Congress’, Legislative

Studies Quarterly. 11:2, 203-26. Costa, Olivier and Eric Kerrouche (2007). Qui sont les députés français? Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Crisp, Brian and Scott Desposato (2004). ‘Constituency Building in Multimember Districts: Collusion or

Conflict?’, Journal of Politics. 66:1, 136-56. Deschouwer, Kris and Paul Lucardie (2003). ‘Partijen en partijsystemen in Nederland and Vlaanderen’,

Sociologische Gids. 50:1, 131-55. De Winter, Lieven and Patrick Dumont (2000). ‘PPGs in Belgium. Subjects of Partitocratic Dominion’, in

Heidar, Knut and Ruud Koole (ed). Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies. London: Routledge, 106-29.

Döring, Herbert (1995). ‘Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda’, in Döring, Herbert (ed). Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt: Campus, 224-46.

Ellis, Aleksander, West, Bradley, Ryan, Ann Marie and Richard DeShon (2002). ‘The Use of Impression Management Tactics in Structured Interviews: A Function of Question Type?’, Journal of Applied Psychology. 87:6, 1200-8.

Esaiasson, Peter (1999). ‘Not All Politics is Local: The Geographical Dimension of Policy Representation’, in Miller, Warren et al. (ed). Policy Representation in Western Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110-36.

Esaiasson, Peter and Jacques Thomassen (2006). ‘Role Orientations of Members of Parliament’, Acta Politica. 41, 217-31)

Eulau, Heinz and Paul Karps (1977). ‘The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness’, Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2:3, 233-54.

Evans, Lawrence (1999). ‘Legislative Strucure: Roles, Precedents, and Jurisdictions’, Legislative Studies Quarterly.24:4, 605-642.

Farrell, David and Paul Webb (1999). ‘Political Parties as Campaign Organisations’, Dalton, Russell and Martin Wattenberg (ed). Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 102-28.

Fearon, James (1999). ‘Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance’, Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan and Bernard Manin (ed). Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 55-97.

Gambetta, Diego (1999). “Claro!”; An Essay on Discursive Machismo’, in Elster, Jon (ed). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-43.

Godfrey, Debra, Jones, Edward, and Charles Lord (1986). ‘Self-Promotion is not Ingratiating’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50:1, 106-15.

Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Gulati, Girish (2004). ‘Members of Congress and Presentation of Self on the World Wide Web’, Harvard

International Journal of Press/Politics. 9:1, 22-40. Hazan, Reuven and Gerrit Voerman (2006). ‘Electoral Systems and Candidate Selection’, Acta Politica. 41,

146-62. Jackson, Nigel (2003). ‘MPs and Web technologies: An Untapped Opportunity’, Journal of Public Affairs. 3:2,

124-37. Jagers, Jan and Stefaan Walgrave (2006). ‘Populism as Political Communication Style. An Empirical Study

of Political Parties’ Discourse in Belgium’, European Journal of Political Science. 46:3, 319-45. Jarvis, Sharon and Kristen Wilkerson (2003). ‘Congress on the Internet: Messages on the Homepages of

the U.S. House of Representatives, 1996 and 2001’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10:2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/jarvis.html [accessed on March 31, 2008].

21

Jewell, Malcolm (1983). ‘Legislator-Constituency Relations and the Representative Process’, Legislative Studies Quarterly. 8:3, 303-37.

Jones, Edward and Thane Pittman (1982). ‘Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation’, Suls, Jerry (ed). Psychological Perspectives on the Self. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 231-62.

Leary, Mark and Robin Kowalski (1990). ‘Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model’, Psychological Bulletin. 107:1, 34-47.

Lee, Suk-Jae, Quigley, Brian, Nesler, Mitchell, Corbett, Amy and James Tedeschi (1999). ‘Development of a Self-Presentation Tactics Scale’, Personality and Individual Differences. 26, 701-22.

Mattson, Ingvar and Kaare Strøm (1995). ‘Parliamentary Committees’, in Döring, Herbert (ed). Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt: Campus, 249-306.

Mayhew, David (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Metts Sandra and Erica Grohskopf (2003). ‘Impression Management: Goals, Strategies, and Skills’, Greene,

John and Brant Burleson (eds). Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum, 357-402.

Norris, Pippa (2003). ‘Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation, and Party Websites’, Party Politics. 9:1, 21-46.

Parker, Glenn and Roger Davidson (1979). ‘Why Do Americans Love Their Congressman so Much more than Their Congress?’, Legislative Studies Quarterly. 4:1, 53-61.

Powell, Bingham (2004). ‘Political Representation in Comparative Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science. 7, 273-96.

Rahat, Gideon and Reuven Hazan (2001). ‘Candidate Selection Methods. An Analytical Framework’, Party Politics. 7:3, 297-322.

Rehfeld, Andrew (2005). The Concept of Constituency. Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy, and Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saward, Michael (2006). ‘The Representative Claim’, Contemporary Political Theory. 5:2, 297-318. Schlenker, Barry and Michael Weigold (1992). ‘Interpersonal Processes Involving Impression Regulation

and Management’, Annual Review of Psychology. 43, 133-68. Schütz, Astrid (1997). ‘Self-Presentational Tactics of Talk-Show Guests: A Comparison of Politicians,

Experts, and Entertainers’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 27:21, 1941-52. Searing, Donald (1994). Westminster’s World. Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press. Shugart, Matthew, Valdini, Melody and Kati Suominen (2005). ‘Looking for Locals: Voter Information

Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation’, American Journal of Political Science. 49:2, 437-49.

Smith, Colin and William Webster (2004); ‘Members of the Scottish Parliament on the Net’, Information Polity. 9:1, 67-80.

Thomassen, Jacques and Rudy Andeweg (2004). ‘Beyond Collective Representation: Individual Members of Parliament and Interest Representation in the Netherlands’, Journal of Legislative Studies. 10:4, 47-69.

Van Aelst, Peter (2002). ‘Politici Online: Naar een verdere personalisering van de politiek?’ Antwerpen: PSW-paper, nr.4.

1 The term constituency is used here, and throughout the paper, to denote groups eligible to vote for a legislator and who support him/her to various degrees. District will be used to indicate the geographical area.

2 Arguably, a representative claim on a public website constitutes a stronger commitment than checking a box on an anonymous questionnaire.

3 Communication specialists were interviewed in all major parties in Belgium. 4 To decide the number of votes a party has won, its votes are pooled across the Netherlands – moreover, parties present the same top candidates in all 19 regions.

5 Attempts have been made, however, to distinguish between them – for example, Schlenker 1980 and Schlenker and Weigold 1992.

6 Fenno distinguished empathy (“I understand you”) from identification (“I am one of you”) – a distinction that will not be retained here.

7 The results are reported below: In Belgium, z=-1.96 and p=0.05 for H0: (Per=0) = (Per=1) In the Netherlands, z=-3.25 and p=0.00 for H0:(Per=0) = (Per=1). 8 Measured is a clear dominance of parliamentary questions compared to interventions in debates as

demonstrated on the website. Bill proposals are disregarded, except when discussed on the site, since more often than not they are closer to position-taking than lawmaking. (Mayhew 1974)