Voters in Lower Saxony have elected their local councillors and city leaders. Political scientist Michael Jankowski talks about election information and digital election campaigns, populist rhetoric and the influence of the federal trend.
What makes this year's local elections in Lower Saxony interesting for you?
On the one hand, the coronavirus pandemic will have an impact. A higher proportion of postal voters could be a relevant factor, as this could result in different voting behaviour. In addition, the federal trend is always reflected to a certain extent at municipal level, so the recent decline of the federal Greens could also have an impact at municipal level. The three-party race for the chancellorship can also be observed in cities and municipalities in many places.
How does the proximity to the Bundestag elections affect the local elections? The gap is only two weeks...
The proximity is special, especially as the Bundestag election takes place on the same date as run-off elections, for example for the office of mayor. This gives an additional boost to voter turnout in the run-off elections. Otherwise, someone at the polling station would have to actively say, no, I'm not voting in the run-off election. This in turn means that the electorate is made up differently than in the vote that led to the run-off. In general, the theory assumes that an election deviates most strongly from the national trend exactly between two federal elections, i.e. with a maximum time gap between them - according to this, the national trend should have a particularly strong impact in the local election on Sunday. On the other hand, local orientations play a role, as does the fact that better-educated voters in particular are able to distinguish between the differing positions of the parties at local and national level.
To what extent have you observed election campaigns shifting from the streets to the internet in recent years - especially in times of a pandemic - and what effect is this having?
There is a trend towards digitalised election campaigns, including at local level. For example, the FDP here in Oldenburg has dispensed with small street posters. Also because there are still comparatively few people out and about in the city centres, the parties are trying to campaign more online. At the moment, we can only speculate about what effect this will have.
You are involved in a digital voting aid project called "Voto", which has been enabling citizens across the country to compare their opinions online with the positions of local parties and candidates for several weeks now. How has this started?
It has been very well received. More than 24,000 users have already played through the 30 theses on which the candidates have positioned themselves in advance. At least the major parties are participating virtually across the board. In some cases, the state associations have indicated basic positions, and the municipal associations have adapted these to their local positions where necessary, for example on the question of whether citizens should contribute to road construction expenditure or not. Overall, we have good coverage and a good range of positions for all cities and municipalities.
In your research on local elections, you take a closer look at independent voter groups, or UWGs for short, which run in many places. You have analysed election data since 1981. Is their success primarily down to differentiating themselves from the established parties?
A wide range of factors play a role in the question of why parties or local lists are successful. Just as there is not just one electoral factor for the success or failure of the SPD or other parties. Furthermore, there is of course not just one local electoral community; their content profiles can certainly differ. But our research can add another facet to the explanations for the electoral success of independent voter communities here and there. Their local roots are definitely a success factor. However, as we have found, UWG communication can also go hand in hand with a certain rhetoric and positioning that is not far removed from the political science definition of populism.
What do you mean by that?
Populism essentially consists of two aspects. Firstly, the idea that the political elite is at least morally corrupt, has distanced itself from the people, is only interested in maintaining its own power and does too little for the interests of the citizens. Secondly, that there is a will of the people, the will of a - supposedly - homogeneous group, and the populist defines what that will is. Populists claim to know what the people actually want and that this would be clearly enforced if the voters were directly involved. If you compare this with how UWG communicate, you will find corresponding patterns: "We are not a party. We are not those from above who are interested in power or maintaining it. We are your neighbours, we know what the community actually wants - those from the parties don't know that because they are ideologically blinded." This rhetoric is not always to be found, but often.
In other words, they often clearly distance themselves from the political establishment. Does this put them in competition with the right-wing populist AfD?
We looked at the election data: If it is the case that Independent Voters' Associations at local level are in part a functional equivalent of populist parties - what happens when all of a sudden the AfD, a nationally established populist party, competes at local level? To find out, we compared the development of local election results in municipalities where the AfD does or does not run. Where the AfD is running, the UWG suffers the most, losing more than three percentage points on average - more than the other parties. So far, our analysis confirms that at least some independent voter associations are tapping into populist voter potential.
Do you observe a strong polarisation in local politics overall or is there a lot of consensus?
It is difficult to measure the degree of polarisation. But I would say that it is on the increase. It is true that there is an image of local politics according to which it is primarily about projects such as a new playground, which all political players can presumably agree on without any major dispute. However, this does not mean that political conflict and politicisation do not exist at municipal level. There is party competition, and it also makes a difference at municipal level which party I vote for. There may be some issues where it is easier to reach a consensus. But the municipalities also have distribution conflicts, they are not swimming in money - on the contrary.
And then there's the question of what the money is used for...
Parties already have different ideas about this. Ideologies play a role, even when it comes to increasing or decreasing municipal taxes. What mitigates the polarisation somewhat is that local political cooperation depends more on individuals than at state or federal level. Perhaps the CDU councillor plays in the same football club as his colleague from the Greens and has a good personal basis. Conversely, personal animosities could also lead to elected officials not working well together locally. Research certainly shows that such personal relationships can play a role.
Interview: Deike Stolz
