What the pre-election campaigns say and show

"United Serbia" is the slogan Serbian Progressive Party for this election campaign. At first glance, it is a call to overcome divisions. But in the context of the practices of the party that has been in power for almost a decade and a half, the slogan opens another question: can unity be offered by an organization that has for years presented its opponents as enemies, traitors and foreign mercenaries?

Marketing expert Igor Avžner believes that the discrepancy between the message and the political reality is one of the problems of the SNS campaign. Journalist Đorđe Vlajić, who has followed election campaigns since 1990, recognizes the possibility that the slogan will turn against those who send it, because a call for unity can hardly be convincing when it comes from an actor who has divided society into "ours" and "theirs" for years.

The election campaign shows how actors try to win over voters, what image of society they offer and what emotions they count on. In Serbia, this has been going on for decades with extremely unequal access to the media and constant presentation of the opponent as a threat to the state. However, the current campaign raises the question of whether the way in which political support is created has changed, especially when it comes to the Student Movement.

Avzner believes that the government is running two campaigns at the same time: one with Aleksandar Vučić as the central figure and the main promoter of the list, and the other on the ground, through conflicts, demonstrations of force and attempts to present opponents as bullies. Vlajić recognizes patterns from the nineties in this. However, both point to the difference between a campaign that wants to maintain the existing balance of power and a movement that seeks to change it.

photo: marija janković

FROM TELEVISION TO DIGITAL PROPAGANDA

Vlajić reminds that the first multi-party elections in 1990 were an attempt to make a democratic breakthrough from a system in which the elections did not serve the actual change of government. Slobodan Milošević quickly recognized television as the most effective means of propaganda, while the opposition did not have nearly equal access to electronic media. The rallies were therefore an important stage on which the parties showed their numbers.

"Looked at from that point of view, not much has changed to this day", assesses Vlajić.

The difference is that in the last decade, the government has further expanded its influence on the electronic media and gained new means of putting pressure on its opponents. Instead of competing ideas, citizens get a media image in which critics are enemies of the state, and the political elite is the only guarantor of stability.

Milošević's propaganda apparatus called his opponents "a handful of fascists", "traitors" and "anti-patriots", and as his power weakened, the insults became more severe. According to Vlajić, a similar pattern still exists today: in the speech of the government and the media close to it, the opponents are "Ustasha", "Kurti's servants" and the like. The goal is not only to dispute the program of the other party, but to displace the opponent from the community of legitimate political actors.

Once an opponent presents himself as an enemy, discussion of his ideas becomes less important. Instead of the question of what he has to offer, the question of whether he should be allowed to come to power comes to the fore. Such a message solidifies supporters and causes undecideds to fear change.

Avzner believes that this model can be seen even now: part of the SNS a campaign takes place through conflicts on the ground, and footage of these conflicts is used for a narrative about violent opponents. Such a strategy can cause additional resistance among already committed citizens. An actor can design a message to intimidate an opponent, but cannot determine how the audience will react. The same scene can convince one that the government is the only barrier to chaos, and others that the government uses force because it has no more convincing offer.

According to Avzner's assessment, SNS relies too much on well-known channels, messages and Vučić's personal promotion, and it is difficult to adapt to the changed habits of the audience. However, the question is not only whether the messages are outdated, but whether they are still reaching an audience ready to accept them.

FEAR AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY

For years, the government has been building an image of itself as the only guarantor of stability, economic progress and national interests. Vlajić believes that this pattern is repeated from the Serbian Radical Party to its successor, the SNS. Change is not presented as a normal part of democracy, but as a risk for everything achieved, so the political game boils down to the question of who will prevent the worst scenario.

"It seems to me that the key point of those messages is the fear of change with which they want to cement their survival in power," says Vlajić.

Fear has always been a part of campaigns, but what matters is whether the political offer remains reduced to a promise that the government will prevent a disaster. When such a message is repeated from campaign to campaign, the government is no longer presented as a choice but as a necessity: voters support it not because they are satisfied, but because they believe that change could be worse.

Avzner describes the campaign as a clash of rational and emotional messages. A large part of the voters has already made up their minds, so the remaining room for influence is among those who are considering whether they will go to the polls at all. However, emotions are not the property of the government alone. Campaigns do not always create them from scratch, but can recognize sentiments that already exist and channel them towards a political goal. According to Avzner, this is one of the key differences between the government and student mobilization.

EMOTION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPOKEN

Avzner believes that the student movement does not have to produce big emotional messages because emotions are already present among people. Personal example, willingness to sacrifice, empathy and persistence became means of mobilization without classical advertising processing. The students did not start by devising slogans, but by protesting, and they gained political importance through the reactions of institutions, citizens and authorities.

Vlajić believes that the students offered a change, and their perseverance in the face of pressure helped to reduce the fear of the authorities. He cites arrests and beatings of students, dismissals of professors, pressure on faculties and court proceedings that he considers suspicious. The fact that students, pupils and professors continue to oppose themselves becomes part of political communication.

"Students offer change and that, I believe, is the most significant and powerful message," says Vlajić.

Unlike a campaign that evokes fear of the unknown, student mobilization relies on what citizens have already seen: they can judge how these people behave under pressure instead of believing promises. This, of course, does not mean that emotions are proof of political competence. Empathy and solidarity do not by themselves answer questions about program and governance, but they can create a space in which citizens become more willing to hear a new offer.

That is why it is important to distinguish emotion from manipulation. There is a difference between a message that prevents change through fear and a message that encourages participation through solidarity. In the first case, a citizen is someone who needs to be protected from an adversary; in the second, he is a participant who makes demands, evaluates actors and decides his own future.

Avzner points out that the students showed their willingness to act by personal example, and their energy and ability to gather became their strengths. Vlajić emphasizes that they did not accept the government's attempts to bring them into a framework suitable for her campaign.

"It seems to me a significant novelty in the election campaign that the students did not swallow a single hook from Vučić's arsenal with which he wanted to draw them into his political pool," says Vlajić.

A political opponent does not have to respond to every provocation and accept every imposed topic, because then the campaign becomes a discussion about the questions raised by the other. It is not simple: staying silent about an attack can act as an avoidance of responsibility. According to Vlajić, the advantage of the students is not in a better slogan, but in the fact that they did not allow their position to be determined through the conflict that the government tried to impose.

A CAMPAIGN IS NOT JUST WHAT IS TAKEN

In the traditional model, parties relied on rallies, posters, television and slogans, and success was measured by the number of people at the meeting and media space. Today, messages are transmitted through many channels and beyond the control of the author: a video from a rally can become an object of ridicule, and a slogan can take on the opposite meaning.

Avžner believes that the government continues to use the channels it is used to, Vučić as the central brand and gatherings of supporters for the sake of an image of broad support, but that part of that campaign does not seem convincing. However, the quality of communication should be distinguished from electoral strength. A tiresome campaign can still sway a section of the electorate, just as a movement that gets a lot of attention doesn't automatically get votes. It is important to whom the message is intended, whether it reaches that audience and whether it changes opinions or just reinforces existing attitudes.

According to Avzner, there are fewer and fewer undecideds, so turnout is more important than convincing voters to switch sides. The campaign must therefore address both those who do not believe that their vote changes anything and those who need motivation to actually come out. Actors thus shape the idea of ​​what is possible and who has the power to change things.

photo: marija janković

SLOGANS AS PROMISES AND TRAPS

Slogans continue to live after the campaign, and some have turned against the parties that used them. "For our children", with which SNS presented itself as the protector of the future, later took on an ironic meaning among critics. When it enters the public space, a slogan depends on the experience of citizens and how others use it.

Vlajić believes that "United Serbia" could suffer a similar fate due to the gap between the call for unity and the practice of division, which is additionally reinforced by the performances at the meetings of the authorities and the circumstances under which a part of the people gather at them. If citizens recognize a contradictory experience in the slogan, it becomes a reminder of that gap; if they accept that the opponents are to blame for the division, it serves to strengthen their positions.

The student slogan "We know how" responds to the doubt of the authorities and part of the opposition in the students' ability to offer a program and management model. He promises not only change, but also competence. Vlajić believes that his strength is given by the profile of the people on the list, among whom there are uncompromised candidates with higher education and reputation, but he leaves open the question of whether the message will be engraved in the collective memory. In order to reach the undecided, it must receive content through concrete answers about what will change and how.

In Vlajić's opinion, the SPS slogan "Stability Factor" does not correspond to the position of the party, which is faced with falling out and is trying to regain its identity after a long reliance on the SNS.

The three slogans thus represent three positions: SNS as a unifying force, SPS as a guarantor of stability, students as an answer to doubting their abilities. Their credibility depends on how well they fit into the experience of citizens and how well the actors confirm them with their actions.

WHO CONTROLS THE STORY?

In the campaign, actors also compete for the right to determine what will be talked about, because whoever imposes the topic often determines the framework in which the voters evaluate everything else. Vlajić points out that the student movement did not accept the topics imposed by the government and thus avoided reducing the campaign to a defense against accusations. Avzner believes that students dictate the pace and topics, while the government reacts more and more often instead of setting events.

The government still controls a large part of the media space and can repeat its messages. But control of channels does not mean control of meaning: citizens compare information from different sources with their own experience, and with a great distrust of institutions and media, even the broadest campaign does not guarantee that messages will be accepted. That is why there is so much talk about trust and personal example - the message depends on who says it and whether the audience believes him.

Avzner points out that the models that have long brought the authorities an advantage may no longer give the expected effect, and Vlajić reminds that their basic patterns have been present for decades. However, neither can determine the ultimate reach of a campaign based on messages alone. This requires data on voter intentions, turnout and trust; visibility on the street, the number of people at the rally or the popularity of the slogan do not in themselves tell what the result will be.

The campaign is a struggle to interpret reality. The government is trying to convince citizens that change would threaten stability, and the student movement that change is possible and that citizens can participate in it. Whether it is a new model of mobilization or a new phase of the old conflict, the next election cycles will show.

From television and rallies in the nineties to social networks, the channels and speed of spreading messages have changed, but the basic question remains the same: does the campaign succeed in convincing citizens that its offer is worthy of trust? To see if the old model has really lost its power, messages will have to be compared with voter behavior. Only then will it be known whether only the way of running the campaign or the attitude of citizens towards politics has changed.

Election time! And someone has to report to you independently. That's why it's in October annual subscription the digital edition of "Vremena" even 2.500 dinars cheaper. Choose now!