Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

S i n a r d e t – M u l t i l i n g u a l d e m o c r a c y a n d p u b l i c s p h e r e 317stand much chance of realisation in the current political and institutionalcontext. This suggests it is precisely this context we might have to look at.Focusing (only) on media reform does not touch upon the heart of theproblem, which can rather be situated within the political system. Indeed, inboth Belgium and the EU, we see that media reporting is influenced bypolitical behaviour.Political elites of the EU may express their frustration about the lack ofEuropeanisation of national media. They nevertheless contribute to it bycommunicating decisions primarily to media of their home country. Aftermeetings of the European Council, 27 simultaneous press conferences areusually held in separate rooms, allowing to spin the joint decisions as 27separate negotiation victories to the national electorate. Even thecommunication strategy of the European Commission is nationalised withspokespersons ‘adapting’ information to the country they are briefing. Thistype of strategic behaviour does of course not stimulate but rather hamperconstruction of a European public sphere, a project nonetheless officiallyvery dear to the Commission.A similar dynamic can be seen at work in Belgium, where federal ministersalso tend to communicate their decisions primarily to their ‘own’ media.Press conferences of the federal government often feature the primeminister, flanked by a Dutch-speaking and French-speaking minister whoafterwards both cater for their own media. Politicians anticipate thatjournalists will want a quote of a politician of the own community, thus alsoreinforcing this attitude. Program makers often complain about thereluctance of federal politicians to speak to media of the ‘other’ community.In the past, even perfectly bilingual prime ministers such as Dehaene orVerhofstadt were at times difficult to convince to address media of bothcommunities. In any case, responsibility for the continued segregationwithin European and Belgian public opinion cannot be exclusivelyattributed to journalists, but is clearly also encouraged by the behavior ofpolitical elites.This parallel behaviour can in turn be explained by institutionalsimilarities between the EU and Belgium. EU politicians’ communicationstrategies are national because their electorate also is. The EU does not havefull blown European parties, nor is there electoral competition organised atthe EU level, as the electoral system is organised on a national basis. Becauseof this, European elections are in fact the sum of 27 national elections.Or rather 28, given that European, but also federal elections in Belgium canbe seen as simultaneous community elections for largely the same reasons:Belgium has no federal parties and most electoral districts do not cross thelanguage border. This causes federal ministers to only be accountable to the