Search

Despite the singular importance of the work of national politicians in creating legislation, representing constituents and holding government to account, relatively little work has been done concerning their wellbeing and psychological health. There are unique, as well as universal, stressors that impact upon politicians; a neglect of these issues has profound consequences for those individuals and wider democracy. We propose a 'taxonomy of stressors' as a starting point for further inter-disciplinary and comparative research, and argue that it offers analytical leverage vis-à-vis a far broader set of debates concerning the future of representative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to explore the link between different notions of co‐production. It seeks to emphasise the underlying politics of co‐production in the sense of who defines co‐production, especially in relation to initial decisions concerning which specific policy areas are deemed suitable for codesigning, cocreating, or codelivering with services users or local communities. We argue that the rejection of co‐production by government may inflame political resentment and reconfirm negative pre‐existing attitudes about "the establishment." This is particularly problematic when politicians have promoted the rhetoric of "inclusive governance," "sharing power," or "delegating power" but then reject the co‐productive claims emerging from such statements. The study contributes to existing work by analysing what happens when co‐productive structures are terminated or when public protests demand the reinstitutionalisation of those relationships. We make this contribution by presenting findings from an ethnographic case study involving street trees in a large English city. We suggest these specific findings have a broader relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a supposedly 'anti-political' age, the scholarly literature on celebrity politicians argues that politicians gain popularity by adopting strategies from within the world of entertainment. This article offers the findings of a research project that has detected a marked shift in the interplay between celebrity culture and the presentational strategies adopted by politicians. At the heart of this shift is an increased focus on the concept of 'normality' as politicians increasingly attempt to shake-off the negative connotations associated with 'professional politicians' and instead attempt to appear 'just like us'. As such, this article offers an original approach by distinguishing between 'superstar' celebrity politicians and 'everyday' celebrity politicians before identifying three aspects of each strategy (i.e. media platform, marketing technique and performative role). It offers numerous empirical examples that serve to underpin this distinction before using the example of Boris Johnson as a case study in the attempted shift from 'superstar' to 'everyday' celebrity. This focus on normality offers a fresh entry-point into the analysis of contemporary political statecraft while also posing distinctive questions about the tension between political popularity and credibility in an anti-political age. As such, the approach also has significant implications for normative ideas about how celebrity can be 'democratised' to remedy anti-politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Democratic politics is forged upon the creation and management of a number of complex social relationships that are mediated through the creation of a set of expectations about the respective obligations and responsibilities of each actor. However, we actually know very little about how the public's expectations of political processes, political institutions and politicians can be managed. The danger, as recent research has started to reveal, is that the public's expectations can be overinflated because of the pressures of political competition to the extent that subsequent failure is almost inevitable. This article departs from the conventional approach to this topic, with its emphasis on the creation of 'expectation gaps', and instead develops a more original and distinctive focus on 'expectation vacuums' and 'expectation clouding'. As such, the central argument of this article is that the May 2012 rejection of elected mayors in the vast majority of cities reflected the existence of an 'expectation vacuum' and 'expectation clouding'. This interpretation raises fresh questions about (inter alia) the politics of public expectations, the tools of contemporary statecraft and the future of local governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a previous edition of this journal, an argument concerning the demonization of politicians and the changing nature of democracy was raised. This, in turn, raised previously unconsidered questions about (inter alia): the discourse, language and symbolism surrounding politicians; the limits of democratic politics; the politics of public expectations; and whether political scientists have a professional duty to the public in terms of promoting the public understanding of politics. The aim of making this provocative argument – framed as it was around a reinterpretation of the MPs expenses scandal in the UK – was to provoke a debate about the existence of certain ‘self-evident’ truths, the fragility of democratic politics and the future of political science as an academic discipline. Phrased in these terms the initial article was successful as six respondents – Domonic Bearfield, Alastair Campbell, Martin Gainsborough, Peter Riddell, Klaus Segbers and Gerry Stoker – immediately entered the fray and sought to either finesse and develop my arguments or to offer a considered critique. This article discusses ‘debating demonization’ in the form of a reply to each respondent and a focus on (in turn): the politics of demonization; the politics of the media; the politics of social class; the politics of monitory mechanisms; the politics of performance; and the politics of political science. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article attempts to make a bold and provocative argument not just about the state of accountability research as a field of inquiry but also about the gap that has apparently emerged between the governors and the governed (and the professional responsibilities of scholars beyond academe in terms of public engagement). It emphasizes that “too much accountability can be as problematic as too little” and asks whether it is possible that the transition from “representative” to “monitory” democracy, which is reflected in an increasingly dense and aggressive “accountability industry” (constitutional watchdogs, audit processes, ethical guardians, investigatory agencies, regulatory boards, freedom of information legislation, quasi-judicial commissions, etc.), has actually contributed to the erosion of public support for politicians, political processes, and political institutions? It therefore seeks to challenge a number of “self-evident truths” and dares to be a little brave, to fly some kites, and risk the inevitable misunderstanding and deliberate criticism that attempting to say something different entails. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Although the management of public expectations represents an underdeveloped field of political analysis, the global financial crisis and increasing evidence of public disengagement from conventional politics is likely to focus attention on the capacity of the state and the behaviour of politicians. As such, this article seeks to develop our understanding of public expectations by arguing that the dominant incentives and sanctions framework within competitive political systems facilitates the public's capacity to make demands of politicians while at the same time making it very hard for politicians to impose their expectations of public behaviour vis-a-vis the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]