We are preparing two EU projects in the field of culture, Dubrovnik and Konavle on the one hand, Herceg Novi, Kotor and Budva on the other, and this gave me the opportunity in the past three weeks, more in Herceg Novi, less in Nikšić, to see how political parties communicated with voters in the past local elections.
So, everyone communicated more or less similarly, according to some old models of their headquarters in Podgorica. That's why, due to the outdated model of election campaigns, for everyone, one "stretched two", rather than a "six". Why this, "barely two" and not "barely six" - because it was, so as not to get angry, a childish, beginner's approach to communication and election campaigns. The justification is - they often point out - the people are fed up with elections and political campaigns, and my explanation is that the politicians themselves were fed up and, so demotivated, and always irresponsible, could hardly wait for that Monday, i.e. the 14th, so that everything would pass.
What did it look like in these local campaigns in Nikšić and Herceg Novi? What communication models were used? The first model that many used is called "we can do it all ourselves". The second, a little, at least a little stronger, is: "here's our guy in charge of PR, so let him do it". The third level is "hiring some creative godfather, so let him pepper them"; the fourth level is "hiring a PR agency to do it the way we tell them and how they've done it until now", and the fifth model is the only one that gives results. Now, what's the problem with that model - it can't give bigger results in three weeks, which is how long the political parties decided their campaigns would last. So, that communication model gives results in the long term, the results are then solid, stable, and very profitable, because they achieve long-term goals, not just short-term, temporary ones. That model is simply called "The one and only - just professional". It is constant, strategic, proactive, creative, communication, based on the potential and values of the party.
U text a month ago in Vijesti titled "A match with a known winner" I tried to present successful models of political communication and, by analyzing the communication between students and Aleksandar Vučić in Serbia, to present a strategy and a model that is sure to win. It seems that those who needed it most, those who defined the campaigns for the local elections in Novi and Nikšić, did not read it. As in all professional activities, the essence of political campaigns is still in knowledge, in organization, in a proactive communication model, in creative content and, in much more that is defined in the communication strategy.
That's why these HN and NK campaigns looked like this, no creativity at all, only the usual events, conventions, presentations of the lists; no new content, actions for certain categories of citizens, especially not for those who are not sufficiently interested, most often undecided; no events and content for young people, which would animate them, move them to action, social networks, more or less the same. The campaigns seemed not to be local. True, in Novi there was a little bit of teasing/joking/mockery from one local party, especially at the expense of parties with similar programs with which they fought for the same voter. However, the campaign of the Novi List, which was obviously larger and more expensive, did not achieve the expected goals, so their dissatisfaction is evident. The Democrats in Herceg Novi, unlike them, achieved much more than they expected. They, unlike the other parties that were in power with them in the previous mandate in Novi, continued with the same communication that they had throughout their mandate, so that the "We Know Each Other by Our Deeds" campaign, a reminder of what had been achieved, bore fruit for them. They took advantage of the fact that they were in power and constantly communicated this, and thereby tied the citizens of Novi to them. That's what ZBNK (ex DF) did in Nikšić and won the votes of citizens who had previously, and especially recently, "tied" them with work.
The reasons for the low turnout in Novi compared to the previous local elections, and the significant increase in Nikšić, should be sought in the fact that in Novi there was no communication with young people, new voters and undecided voters, and on the other hand, ZBNK managed to increase the electorate (?) and have all these new voters vote for them. DPS was shocked by the turnout and results (the research they commissioned predicted a lower turnout and a larger difference, in their favor, compared to the ex DF). I will not go into explaining this increase in the electorate, when neither DPS nor other parties emphasize this.
Completely satisfied - none. Democrats are very satisfied with Novi, dissatisfied with Nikšić. ZBCG/ex DF is satisfied with Nikšić, less satisfied with Novi. PES, somewhere in between, not really satisfied with Nikšić, although they "wonder", and less satisfied with Novi, because, I remind you, Novska/PES expected much more. The rest are mostly dissatisfied, URA, European Alliance, civic parties, and even DPS.
Worrying for all of us are the poor results of civic and local parties. For them, but also for others, it is time for serious reforms. When should parties reform? In the "lifeline" of (political) organizations, there are several phases, and most parties have reached the saturation phase. Then, based on research and analysis, but also the potential of the parties, a redesign of the program, content, and redefining of the values on which everything is based, especially communication, from strategy, model, to communication organization, is carried out. Parties have reached that maximum in the "lifeline", and some are already in decline. The alarm bells are ringing for them. Each of the parties has its own potential for growth, but if it is not approached professionally, responsibly, honestly, and openly - the reforms will not succeed.
Will it come to that? I sincerely doubt it. Politicians like to do everything themselves. They know everything best, they don't like knowledge, expertise. Therefore, the first reform change must occur in the philosophy of the parties. Everyone must get out of the "ego state" and understand that they are there only for their members, supporters, voters, undecided citizens, new voters. In a word, for all citizens, but also the media, non-governmental organizations, professional public, economy, professional organizations and all segments of society.
That is why I expect them to admit that they need reforms, but I fear that they will implement them only superficially and superficially, and thus will not change the essence and character of their political organizations. After all, in other areas of society, they do not allow professional standards to be introduced, they do not allow professionals, i.e. professions, to rule education, healthcare, culture, science, sports, social care, history, urban planning, architecture, construction, and even the entire economy, especially not public and communal enterprises.
This was so clearly seen in these campaigns. Communication without any strategies, they come up with their own messages, slogans, of course, they don't do research, because they think they don't need it, they use designers or so-called designers from professionals, and when it comes to PR, they think that all that matters is what and how to say it. And even there, in public appearances, they make mistakes because they are constantly in a state of "me, and here I am", they almost never communicate from the perspective of citizens, because they have never done that, so why should they now in campaigns.
How narrowly they view political communication would be best seen if they were asked to compare the communication of their political organization and the human body - if they were asked to say which human organ represents PR, they would say the mouth, the tongue, the speech. Others, who still see a little, very little, see it more broadly, and these are those who have done research in the campaign, and very few have done it wrongly - they would say the mouth, but also the ears.
None of the political leaders would say that PR is also the brain, that's why they don't work on communication strategies. If some expert who develops a strategy and designs the organization of communication, for example, told students in Serbia that PR is the entire organism, first the ears, for research, then the head, for analysis, data processing, designing programs, and, most importantly, strategies; then the heart that "pumps" information, knowledge, and even emotion and energy through the bloodstream, the much-needed drive, for internal organization, local party mobilization and in its most remote parts, for internal two-way communication, and through training, constantly raising the capacity of the party, members, and supporters; muscles for internal strength and efficient party coordination, but also the strength needed for organizing internal and external (creative) events; then hands for implementing activities and effective production; legs, for creative events that connect those publics that we need and that we turn into partners and with whom we launch joint activities; a strong stomach for, often hidden and invisible, intra-party subterfuge, for inter-party "spitting" and for all the uncomfortable situations that happen to us in these communication games. And, all of this is visible on the outside, in a harmonious organism, a body that shows its strength, security, stability also on healthy skin, a beautiful face, which gives a first impression, and which attracts everyone, especially the young, the new. That's the PR they need.
The author is a regional communications expert
Bonus video:
