If
there is to be some regulation of what the media may or may not do during an
election, then this is likely to apply to a specified campaign period. There
will be a given period of official campaigning during which the regulations
will apply, while otherwise normal practice will prevail. Many countries have
campaign periods with clearly defined lengths; others vary depending on when
the election is called, when parliament is dissolved, and other factors. The
United States is unusual in having no defined campaign period.
Some
examples of campaign lengths are as follows:[i]
- In Canada, the minimum length for a campaign is 36
days, and the longest ever was 74 days (in 1926);
- In Australia, the campaign must be a minimum of 33
days (the longest ever was 11 weeks in 1910);
- In France, the official election campaign usually
lasts no more than 2 weeks;
- In Japan, campaigning is allowed for 12 days;
- In Singapore, the minimum length is 9 days;
- In Israel, the electoral law relating to media
coverage covers a time frame of 150 days before the election, and during the 30
days immediately before the election, no campaigning is permitted in cinemas or
on television.[ii]
A
clearly defined campaign period is logical, perhaps, but can still be rather
problematic. For example, voters may be just as much influenced by what they
learn about candidates, parties, and platforms from the media at an earlier
period, and not just what they learn during the official campaign period. For
this reason (among others) media monitoring teams often start their work well
in advance of the official campaign period.
Indeed,
political wisdom (and experience prior to the 2000 election) in the United
States has it that the candidate who is leading on Labor Day (in September)
will win the presidential election (in November). So nothing that happens in
the final two months of the campaigning (longer than most countries' official
campaign period) has much influence. The American approach is to have no
designated campaign period at all - indeed roughly two years out of every
presidential term are taken up with campaigning. But this would not suit most
countries.
Few
countries have election periods quite as closely defined as Estonia, where the
law relating to the obligations of broadcasters in the election creates a
clearly separated pre-election and election period, with the latter then
subdivided into four further periods, each with its own different reporting
rules: the application period, the election campaign, the voting period, and
the period of determining and publishing the election results.
But
the application of such strict regulation presupposes that there will be a set
date for the election. In many countries, particularly those that have an
electoral system based on the British one, choice of the election date lies
with the incumbent head of government. Alternatively, in most systems, an election
may be precipitated by an event such as parliamentary vote of no confidence. In
such cases, it will be impossible to apply media regulations that extend beyond
a fairly limited campaign period.
The best option,
perhaps, is for the system of electoral media regulation to be well meshed with
the general system of media regulation - ensuring that the media are
pluralistic, vibrant, professional, and free from censorship at all times, not
just during campaign periods
[i] These were the campaign lengths that applied as of August 2012
[ii] Akiba A. Cohen
and Gadi Wolfsfeld, "Overcoming Adversity and Diversity: The Utility of
Television Political Advertising in Israel", in Political Advertising in Western Democracies, eds. Lynda Lee Kaid
and Christina Holtz-Bacha, (London/Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995)
