One of
the fundamental decisions to be made in organizing direct access broadcasts by the
parties is whether slots are to be allocated on the basis of equality or
equity. Equality, clearly, means that every party or candidate gets the same
access. Equity means that everyone gets fair access - the idea being that a
party with large popular support should have more airtime than one that does
not.
The
Argument For Equality
The
argument for equal direct access coverage stipulates that everyone is provided
an opportunity to present their point of view to the electorate. It will be the
electorate that chooses, rather than a broadcaster or an electoral regulator.
This is a simple system to administer and everyone can understand it. It is
particularly attractive in a first or second democratic election when there is
no sure way of knowing how much support the different parties has. Some
countries that use versions of equality in direct access are:
France
The
formula for allocating direct access broadcast time in the French presidential
elections is one of equality for all candidates, who usually number about 14.
If no clear winner emerges there is a second round run-off between the two
leading candidates, and again air-time is allocated equally between them.[i]
Denmark
Denmark
allocates equal time to all political parties in parliamentary elections, so
long as they satisfy certain basic criteria: they must have been registered
with the Ministry of the Interior, which requires that they will have collected
signatures equivalent to one in 175 of the votes cast at the last election.[ii]
Norway
In
Norway, time is allocated equally, but again certain criteria must be met.
Parties must have been represented in one of the last two parliaments, have a
national organization and be fielding candidates in a majority of districts.
Smaller parties that do not meet this threshold nevertheless have a short
programme.[iii]
Italy
The
state broadcaster, RAI gives equal time to all competing parties in an
election. However, private commercial broadcasters have no such obligation.[iv]
Czechoslovakia
In
Czechoslovakia's first democratic election, all parties received the same
allocation of broadcast time - a total of four hours over a campaign period
lasting 40 days. The slots were then divided up into slices of different time
lengths. The exact schedule was then determined by lots.[v]
Armenia
Armenia
gave equal access to each party,[vi]
but the amount was limited to five minutes for each candidate or party. This
avoided the problem of information overload but perhaps created an opposite
problem. Was this really enough information for the voter?
Japan
Japan
has a system of equal access but with a minimum qualification threshold. In
order to receive equal broadcasting time a party must field at least 12
candidates. In the Upper House, however, all candidates receive five and a half
minutes of free broadcasting time.
Netherlands
The
Netherlands, like Japan, has a system that is a sort of modified equality. In
principle all parties have equal broadcasting time. However, the regulatory
body, the Media Commissariat, may allocate extra time to parties running
candidates in all electoral districts.[vii]
The
Argument Against Equality
Equality
gives a built-in advantage to the incumbent party, which has many other
opportunities to convey its policies through the media. What equality does is
to promote the no-hope opposition parties at the expense of those with a
genuine possibility of ousting the ruling party. Equality may also mean that
there is simply too much material being generated for the electorate to absorb.
They will get bored and the direct access process may become a waste of time.
Again this is likely to favour the incumbent.
Another
argument against automatic equal access is that it will encourage frivolous
candidates who are only interested in the free publicity.
The
Argument For Equity
If
direct access is allocated on a fair (or equitable) basis, this ensures that
all parties are given an opportunity to speak to the electorate, roughly in
proportion to their popular support. This means that the electorate gets to
hear the arguments between the main contenders for office, while parties with
less support also get a say (but a smaller one).
The
main considerations for equitable access are likely to be:
- a party's strength in
previous elections
- the number of candidates it
is fielding
There
is usually a minimum allocation of time to all parties, or at least to those
fielding a certain number of candidates. This is an attempt to address the
criticism that an "equitable" approach is not very fair to new
parties.
These
calculations are more difficult to make in a presidential election, where a
candidate may be standing for the first time.
Examples
of countries that use a system of equity of access are:
Greece
As of
2002, all informative (as opposed to entertainment)
television and radio stations, whether public or private, are obliged to provide
free airtime of ten minutes each week (not to be shifted or aggregated) for
parties and coalitions of parties represented in the Greek and European
Parliaments. Non-parliamentary parties are also allowed free airtime, at a
rate of five minutes of for political parties with lists in least three fifths
of constituencies of the country; and three minutes for parties with lists in
at least half of constituencies.[viii]
Spain
Spain
uses a formula to determine allocation of free airtime. As of the mid-1990s,
this formula was: parties that did not win seats in the previous election have
ten minutes' broadcasting time. Parties that won less than five per cent of the
vote have 15 minutes' broadcasting time. Parties that won up to 20 per cent
have 30 minutes and those that won more than 20 per cent have 45 minutes'
broadcasting time.
United
Kingdom
A
committee of broadcasters and political parties at each election reviews the
formula for allocation of broadcasting time.
It is roughly as follows: all parties fielding 50 or more candidates are
allocated one free broadcast. The two main parties receive equal broadcasting
time - usually about five ten-minute broadcasts. The third main party receives
slightly less - usually four ten-minute slots.[ix]
Israel
All
parties contesting an election are given a basic allocation of 10 minutes
broadcasting time. Parties that were represented in the outgoing Knesset
(parliament) receive an additional three minutes for each seat they held.[x]
Turkey
All
parties contesting the election are entitled to ten minutes broadcasting time.
Parties with parliamentary representation may receive an additional ten
minutes. In addition, the governing party is entitled to an additional 20
minutes, and the main opposition party to another ten minutes.[xi]
The
Argument Against Equity
This
system is an obstacle to the emergence of new parties, since it is always based
on what support they achieved last time. And what if there was no last time?
How is popular support determined in a first democratic election? The system
could thus be open to abuse.
And
the Answer?
There
is no right or wrong answer to this problem, as can be seen by the variety of
solutions in both well-established and new democracies. But the different
approaches may suit different political systems better. Here are some further
considerations:
- Equality may work better when
there are fewer parties or candidates. When there are too many then the
"cake" may have to be cut into impossibly tiny slices, or made
so large that there is too much election broadcasting for anyone to take
in.
- Equality may work better in
a new or "transitional" democracy. This perhaps contradicts the
previous point, since new democracies often have many parties (and ruling
parties in new democracies may encourage this). But the point is that if
there has been no previous democratic election, then there will be no
commonly agreed measure of how much popular support each party has.
- Conversely, equity may work
better in an established democracy where there are clear measures of past
electoral support. Or are the equality advocates right, and does this just
obstruct the emergence of new political alternatives?
But
even these considerations are only pointers. Many established democracies -
France, Italy, Denmark - allocate direct access broadcasting in the public
media on the basis of equality (in at least some elections). And many new
democracies -, Brazil, Namibia - allocated time on a proportional or equitable
basis.
Whichever
approach is adopted, its success will depend in large measure on the
credibility and impartiality of the regulating body that allocates the
broadcasts. This is a very strong argument for having the political parties
themselves involved in drawing up the regulations governing media and
elections. Parties are more likely to be committed to a process in which they
have been consulted and have contributed to designing the system.
All
these arguments clearly apply primarily to criteria for allocating direct
access time - that is, direct access broadcast programmes that are available
free to parties. Paid political advertising, where it is allowed, will usually
be on the basis that parties can have as much direct access time as they can
afford (or as they are allowed within campaign spending limits). But this may
not always be the case. And if limits are to be applied to paid advertising,
then the same considerations of equality and equity may apply.
[i] Anne Johnston
and Jacques Gerstle, "The Role of Television Broadcasts n Promoting French
Television Candidates", in Political
Advertising in Western Democracies, eds. Lynda Lee Kaid and Christina
Holtz-Bacha (London/Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995)
[ii] Karen Siune,
"Political Advertising in Denmark", in Political Advertising in Western Democracies, eds. Lynda Lee Kaid
and Christina Holtz-Bacha (London/Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995)
[iv] Gianpiero
Gamaleri "Italy and the 1994 Elections: Media, Politics and the
Concentration of Power", in Media
and Elections: a Handbook, eds. Yasha Lange and Andrew Palmer, (Dusseldorf:
European Institute for the Media, 1995)
[v] “Library of
Congress, Law Library, Report for Congress: Campaign Financing of National
Elections in Selected Foreign Countries” (Washington, DC: July 1995, LL95-4,
95-1354), 58
[vi] “Report: Observation of the parliamentary elections in
Armenia (12 May 2007)” (Council of
Europe, 2007),
http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11577&Language=EN
[vii] Kees Brants, "The Blank Spot: Political Advertising in the
Netherlands", in Political
Advertising in Western Democracies, eds. Lynda Lee Kaid and Christina
Holtz-Bacha, (London/Thousands Oaks:, Sage Publications, 1995)
[viii] “Greece: Early Parliamentary Elections 4 October 2009”,
(OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission
Report, Warsaw, 2009),15, Http://Www.Osce.Org/Odihr/Elections/Greece/41001
[ix] Brian Wenham
"The United Kingdom: Impartial broadcasters and a Partisan Press", in
Media and Elections: a Handbook, eds.
Yasha Lange and Andrew Palmer (Dusseldorf: European Institute for the Media,
1995)
[x] Library of
Congress, Law Library, Report for Congress: Campaign Financing of National
Elections in Selected Foreign Countries. Washington, DC: July 1995, LL95-4,
95-1354: 58
[xi] Library of
Congress, Law Library, Report for Congress: Campaign Financing of National
Elections in Selected Foreign Countries. Washington, DC: July 1995, LL95-4,
95-1354: 194
