Distance

Another aspect we find essential to discuss in relation to politicians’ increasing use of SoMe concerns distance. Specifically, it can be argued that the distance between politicians and citizens, respectively, gets influenced by the way the politicians’ increasingly use these new media (Appendix 2).

Traditionally, a certain distance between these two mentioned parties has existed as a result of how the politicians have represented authoritarian positions in society (Appendix 2). Nevertheless, it is assessed that today, this distance shrinks concurrently with how politicians’ use of SoMe increases.

This can be explained with how the new media arguably reflects a tone of voice and usage that are characterized as informal and everyday like why the politicians are seen adapting to this certain “code of conduct” (Appendix 2). This implies that, despite the politicians’ authoritarian positions, the citizens all of a sudden get to meet them in a way that is more at eye level. Also, through SoMe, the citizens are provided with the opportunity of easily contacting the politicians directly (Appendix 2).

Consequently, this is assessed to reduce the distance between these two parties.

First of all, considering the impact of this reduced distance, it is assessed that it makes it easier for the politicians to create closer relations with the citizens as they through the new media can communicate directly with them in an informal manner. As for the politicians, this can be viewed positively as closer relations with the citizens might turn to affect their election outcomes favorably. Additionally, one can

101 assume that closer relationships between the citizens and the politicians can give rise to a closer dialogue between these two parties. Specifically, this is argued to be beneficial for the citizens as they hereby acquire greater opportunity to engage in the political conversation. Further, a closer dialogue is similarly assessed to increase the citizens’ chances of having their individual voices heard in the public debate. Hence, this can make it easier for them to have an influence on the political discourse which is considered favorable for the purpose of democracy (Jezierska & Koczanowicz, 2015).

Also, as for the politicians, it can be considered with a positive stance since closer relations and closer dialogue with the citizens can facilitate their undertakings of convincing the citizens of their political trademark issues. Moreover, as also seen in the analysis of the Gen Z informants, the shorter distance can imply that the citizens to a greater extent can relate to the politicians. Specifically, this might entail that the citizens subsequently find it easier to relate to the beliefs of the politicians which would be favourable for the politicians. Moreover, the shortened distance between the politicians and citizens can with the lense of our democratic society also be viewed positively. To clarify, dialogue is in particular an attribute which democracy is dependent on and therefore, it can highly be viewed as a cornerstone of what enables our democratic system to exist (Jezierska & Koczanowicz, 2015).

Nevertheless, despite that the reduced distance between the politicians and the citizens can be contemplated to benefit both of these parties as well as society in overall terms, it can on the other hand also be considered to pose disadvantages. To begin with, it is assessed that some citizens simply prefer to maintain a certain distance to their politicians (Appendix 2) which is also reflected in our empirical studies where some of the Gen Z informants slightly indicate this attitude (Appendix 3; 5).

Therefore, some citizens might arguably deselect certain political candidates if they feel that they become too much on equal footings.

Additionally, it is assessed that if the distance between a politician and a citizen becomes immensely short, so short that the citizen start contemplating them as almost “pals”, it might eventually cause the citizen to judge the politician as incompetent if their interaction as a result hereof end up with primarily being on a friendly rather than political basis. Potentially, it is assessed that this could harm the politician as it could cause his voters to doubt his capabilities and in worst case, discard him to alternately give their support to a politician whom they viewed to be more competent. Particularly, it is assessed that such an event would be most unfortunate if the politician in question in actual fact was professionally efficient behind his prevailing friendly appearance.

102 Moreover, it is assessed that if the shortened distance causes citizens to view otherwise competent politicians as inadequate, it can further cause a mistrust in whether the politicians have the right competencies to hold their state position. Arguably, this could impair our society at large as “trust in government has been identified as one of the most important foundations upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of political systems are built” (OECD, 2013, p. 21). Hence, if mistrust in governmental actors should happen to intensify to eventually become a more general tendency, it could over time, in a worst-case scenario, develop our society to a low-trusting society which could have several negative consequences such as corruption and lower growth (Aghion, Algan, Cahuc & Schleifer, 2010).

Last, it is relevant to highlight that just because the distance between the citizens and the politicians is seen reduced, it does not necessarily equal nor ensure dialogue and two-way communication between these two parties. To clarify, it can be assessed that when politicians appear to be more at eye level with the citizens, it can possibly cause the citizens to become, so to speak, dazzled by this

“meeting on equal terms”. In fact, it is argued that such “amazement” can deceive the citizens to believe that because the politicians “meet them as like-minded”, they also have a like-minded dialogue and relation with them. However, this might not be the case at all since the expert Robert argues that SoMe primarily is used as one-way communication for politicians as their overall objectives on these media concern getting their messages across and not entering into dialogue (Appendix 2). Thus, it can be stated that the reduced distance can make the citizens convinced that they have a harmonious dialogue with the politicians, nevertheless, on a false premise.

103