Communication during the formation process

After more than 200 days since the elections, the end of the formation finally seems to be in sight, but it has not gone completely smoothly. Leaked documents, gossiping spokespeople, some missteps and obstacles threw a spanner in the works. Partly due to this difficult formation procedure – it is not just that to trust by the people have fallen into politics, but also the polarization increased. Reason enough to ensure that lessons are learned from this formation procedure for the future. Questions that arise are: What do you, as party leader, say about the formation and what do you not? Do you have to communicate during the entire process or do you only do that about the end result? What promises can you make? How do you manage expectations? Issuemakers attaches importance to conducting a social and political discussion about the role of party leaders, spokespersons and media in communicating about the formation process. In this blog we therefore explain a number of communication considerations that are important for reporting on such a process.  

Information sharing

With more than 25,000 news items about the formation appearing in online news or printed media since March 17, 2021, the new cabinet was, to put it mildly, a hot topic. Information is released almost every day about the progress of the process. Lately, almost every day, the formation seemed to end in a different form: from a minority cabinet, to an extra-parliamentary cabinet or a majority cabinet with exactly the same parties as the current coalition. The parties involved have released relatively little in terms of content during this rapidly changing formation period. That seems sensible. Yet the media suggested it and citizens were almost dragged into a political soap opera. An important point of discussion is therefore whether it is desirable to report on every minor development. It is difficult. If you share too much information, wrong expectations are created or even the formation process is deteriorated. If you share too little information, the citizen will not be informed of the developments in the process.  

Citizen expectations 

One consequence of sharing too much information about the formation is managing expectations. During the election campaigns, politicians promised a so-called 'flash formation' and that the formation would be completed before the summer holidays. In addition, it would also be a different coalition, but that plan now seems to have been written off. The rapid change of formation forms, together with the long duration and the constant restarting of the formation, caused irritation in society and did not stimulate the formation process. Whether this is solely the responsibility of the party leaders is an interesting question. The media also often pay extra (long) attention to points and also have a role to play.

Spokesmanship and gossip

Formation deterioration is also a possible consequence of too much information sharing. The 'drinks gossip' of informant Johan Remkes is a clear example of this. After a number of frustrating months in which the formation was already going smoothly, too much was shared with the press several times. Not only were parties complaining about other formation partners, but a spokesperson for D66 even suggested that Remkes 'muddled' used to be when conducting the conversations because he was said to have consumed some degree of alcohol.

This kind of gossip has far-reaching consequences for the formation process. Firstly, it undermines the authority of the informant, thereby damaging the process. Secondly, D66 may have lost control over the formation process as a result. Kaag's negotiating position has been considerably weakened by all these accusations and commotion. Finally, it seems increasingly likely that the new cabinet will be formed from the same parties. It is therefore important in a process like this to consider what information you, as party chairman or spokesperson, do or do not release and what effect that may have. A 'joke' can therefore go wrong and have serious backlash.

There are therefore many lessons to be learned from the formation process in the field of communication. In the coming weeks, the formation will mainly take place behind closed doors and reporting on it has entered somewhat calmer waters. Nevertheless, the role of the media and political parties in communication certainly deserves attention. What do you think of the communication surrounding the formation?