By Dr Darren G. Lilleker, Associate Professor, The Media School.

There is a crisis of political engagement. Academics, journalists, political NGOs, even now celebrities tell us there is: with Russell Brand being given a stage to call for abstentionism from the democratic process to highlight the disconnections between government and the governed. The features of the crisis are low trust in politicians, parties and the governments they form; low levels of feeling informed; lower still levels of feeling connected to ‘politics’; and consequent low levels of interest and participation. These are not new, perhaps not wholly unhealthy, and also not particularly surprising.

To start on a positive note, we should not desire blind trust in politicians. Scepticism is healthy, even a degree of cynicism is healthy, blindly following and supporting politicians is dangerous. We also need a critical media, which can breed scepticism and cynicism by questioning the motives of politicians. The problem in many modern, post-industrial democracies is that the balance has tipped to almost complete mistrust, only around 20% of the EU population have any trust in politicians: to represent them, to act of the good of the nation, to follow ethical codes of behaviour. The question is why?

Politicians exist in the eye of a perfect storm. The media express few partisan affiliations and are readier to expose scandal than a positive story. The voters no longer hold strong affiliations to parties; hence they are no longer part of a local conversation with other members. Hence exposure to politics is mediated for the vast majority, who also rely on television news which few watch habitually and sporadic reading of newspapers. So of course there is low information and it is the scandals, the big news items, Plebgate, Expenses, to which most will get the most exposure.

But this is not the full explanation. Politicians now exist largely within what many describe as a bubble, Westminster for example. They largely moved away from community politics, offering sporadic surgeries only, public meetings are now undertaken via television which focus on the minority of top party leaders. Local politics is included by public service broadcasters, but is not the staple diet of many household’s Sunday viewing. The divorce of the representative and the community has been gradual, pushed by party centralisation, the erosion of local activists, clubs, the practice of parachuting in candidates, the pressures of Westminster duties etc.

Some politicians have, however, built new connections. Many politicians (MPs and MEPs) have begun to colonise Facebook and Twitter. Some hold online surgeries. Some request video footage from smartphones to highlight issues. Some seek the views of their constituents. Some inform about their activities at Westminster and locally. Some seek help with local campaigns. The best, and this is an unashamedly normative statement, do all of those.

What is the impact? Party politics, or at least perceptions of leaders, dominate voter choices. But, even when the tide turns towards one party, research shows a local MP can earn 5-12% of the vote based on their service. They can also enhance the image of their party, earn trust, earn interest, and mobilise citizens who feel disenfranchised. And they themselves feed off their constituents, the more they do the more constituents connect with them and so the more they connect with the community they represent.

The crisis of engagement is often seen to begin and end with voting. It is a crisis when the majority do not vote, and a protest against the system to abstain. But largely all this leads to is further disenfranchisement: why would any organisation seeking votes need the thoughts of those who do not participate.

We need a more interactive politics. Where demands of citizens are heard, where representatives interact with a broad swathe of citizens and where there is greater citizen input into and understanding of political processes. Disengagement results from feelings of personal irrelevance, disconnection, insecurity and uncertainty. Politicians need to reduce these feelings and make politics relevant, connected to communities so reducing insecurity in society and uncertainty over political processes and their outcomes. But citizens need to also push for a more active representative, withdrawing is not the answer.

Dr Lilleker has conducted research into a number of aspects of engagement and disengagement, in particular around the communication and campaigning activities of parties and candidates in the UK. The impacts of political communication is a key interest, and he has explored this using theories of psychology in his latest work Political Communication and Cognition (Palgrave, 2014).