M a s t e r P r o g r a m m e i n B u s i n e s s a n d M a n a g e m e n t T h e s i s a d v i s o r : P r o f . S t e f a n J o n s s o n
[Carina Franzén and Maria Koutcherova]
Spring ’11
Bumpy road to democracy. A study of how communicative herritage affects democratical communication in post‐
Soviet countries.
1. Introduction ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5 1.1 Background____________________________________________________________________________________________5 1.2 Research questions and objectives ________________________________________________________________7 1.3 About Moldova ________________________________________________________________________________________7 2. Theory_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 2.1 In a perfect world…The ideal citizen communication.__________________________________________9 2.1.1 Listen and talk to thy customer‐ Relational Communication __________________________________ 9 2.1.2 Reading between the lines ‐ The message_____________________________________________________ 10 2.1.3 When citizens become customers ‐ Political Marketing Communication __________________ 11 2.1.4 Vos’ quality criteria for communication _______________________________________________________ 11 2.2 Reality check Why ideal communication might not be so “ideal”__________________________ 13 2.2.1 Models based on a western paradigm _________________________________________________________ 13 2.2.2 Culture and history matters ____________________________________________________________________ 14 2.2.3 Interpreting messages __________________________________________________________________________ 14 2.2.4 But what is “good” communication anyway? _________________________________________________ 17 2.3 Communicative Heritage – A broader perspective ____________________________________________ 18 3. Method___________________________________________________________________________________________19 3.1 Choice of method ___________________________________________________________________________________ 19 3.2 Choice of respondents _____________________________________________________________________________ 20 3.3 Source criticism_____________________________________________________________________________________ 22 4. Analysis __________________________________________________________________________________________23 4.1 CCH citizen communication vs. the ideal of democratic citizen communication _________ 23 4.2 Meaning Creation Analysis________________________________________________________________________ 26 4.2.1 External analysis ________________________________________________________________________________ 26 4.2.2 Internal Factors _________________________________________________________________________________ 28 4.2.3 Historical factors ________________________________________________________________________________ 32 4.2.4 Future factors ‐ Expectations___________________________________________________________________ 35 4.3 The Communicative Heritage_____________________________________________________________________ 37 4.3.1 Heritage of politicians___________________________________________________________________________ 38 4.3.2 Heritage of citizens ______________________________________________________________________________ 38 4.3.3 But how “ideal” is the ideal communication? _________________________________________________ 39 4.3.4 The role of Communicative Heritage in democratic communication _______________________ 41 5. Conclusion_______________________________________________________________________________________42 5.1 Limitations and suggestions for further research_____________________________________________ 45 6. References________________________________________________________________________________________46 7. Attachments _____________________________________________________________________________________49 7.1 Vos Analysis _________________________________________________________________________________________ 49 7.1.1 Transparency ____________________________________________________________________________________ 49 7.1.2 Accessibility of information and organisation ________________________________________________ 50 7.1.3 Publicity via the media__________________________________________________________________________ 51 7.1.4 Responsiveness__________________________________________________________________________________ 51
Abstract
In this thesis we have looked at the citizen communication of a former Soviet society. Moldova gained independence in 1991, and established their first democratic election the same year.
However, the democratic progress of the nation has been slow and the society is still split between those who believe in the future, and those who experience nostalgia for the past. Our thesis concerns the capital of Moldova, Chisinau, and its City Hall (CCH), which has an expressed wish to communicate more democratically with their citizens. In order to gain ideas about how to communicate more democratically, we have turned to theories of marketing and communication.
By comparing CCH’s citizen communication to western criteria of democratic citizen communication, we find that CCH has quite a long way to go before they can refer to their communication as democratic. However, we believe that these theories, developed in a western society, do not pay enough respect to the cultural and historical context. They rest on assumptions about what democracy is, and how to reach it. In order to find the reason to why CCH’s citizen communication does not measure up to the western ideal, we have looked deeper into the history and culture of the Chisinau society. By interviewing Chisinau citizens and politicians we have discovered that they posses a Communicative Heritage. This heritage is highly influenced by the nation’s experiences of Soviet. Citizens and politicians understanding of both each other, and communication itself constitute this heritage. What we suggest is that this Communicative Heritage also poses as a barrier for achieving democratic citizen communication.
Key words: Citizen communication, Communicative heritage, Moldova
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our thesis committee members and our helpful supervisor, Professor Stefan Jonsson, for inspiration and guidance. Also, a big thank you to all respondents who kindly participated in this study. Grateful appreciation to Mats Johansson, Lena Lagestam and Rodica Afanasieva from BNG Communication PR, and Ronny Arnberg from Borlänge Energi for making it possible for us to write this thesis.
22nd of May 2011
Maria Koutcherova
Carina Franzén
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, many former Soviet countries have experienced a change from a totalitarian communist regime into a young democracy. In the process of establishing democracy, where self-development, knowledge, participation and engagement of its citizens are paramount1, communication is key. Communication and dialogue can be regarded as the prime function that enables participation. Therefore, it is crucial for municipalities to communicate with its citizens in a way consistent with these democratic values to foster the democratic development.
To get ideas about how to establish democratic communication, it is useful to turn to the marketing literature. The ideas of relationship marketing are built on the same values as participatory democracy, where the aim is to build mutually meaningful relationships with ones citizens/customers (Blomqvist et al., 2006, p. 27). Therefore, it can be argued that ideas of relationship marketing can guide municipalities who wish to communicate democratically with their citizens. However, one can question the applicability of these theories in a context where democratic values and behaviour are not inherent. In other words: a context where democracy has not been a part of the history or culture. A vast majority of the theories regarding relationship marketing are developed within a western society. These theories are built on underlying assumptions of what democracy and communication is. These assumptions might not correlate with the reality of a different society, like the society of a former Soviet nation. In order to develop a comprehensive framework for citizen communication, one must pay respect to the dominant values of the specific context.
We believe that present western literature has not paid enough respect to the fact that dominant values can vary, depending on the context. Our way of paying respect to the specific context is introducing the concept “Communicative Heritage”. Our developed concept is built on the notion that previous history and culture of a society affects the way we communicate to one another. By including the factor of Communicative Heritage one might discover other ways of reaching democratic communication, than those proposed by the western paradigm.
1 The definition of democracy used in this thesis comes from Henneberg, Scammell and O'Shaughnessy (2009) concept of “delibarate democracy”.
One of the nations that might have a different Communicative Heritage than the western one is Moldova. In this thesis we attempt to study the Communicative Heritage of Chisinau’s citizens and politicians. Chisinau is the capital of Moldova. Moldova is one of the nations that gained independence after the fall of the Soviet Union. The country is currently classified as the poorest nation of Europe, and the mayor of Chisinau, Dorin Chirtoacă is now struggling to promote democracy and participation. He is the head of Chisinau City Hall, the political authority that is responsible for managing the city. These responsibilities include everything from issuing permits, to deciding on the price for public transportation. Moldova has in the past years experienced a relatively slow development towards democracy. This development, along with aspirations to a future EU membership, exerts new pressures on Chisinau City Hall’s communication with its citizens. As a part in the process of promoting democracy and participation, the mayor has an expressed wish to conduct more democratic citizen communication. This wish to change the communication makes the case of Chisinau City Hall particularly interesting to study.
The practical contribution of our thesis is to provide guidance for political institutions like CCH, or other actors within a similar context. Our findings will be directed towards institutions that wish to conduct democratic citizen communication. In this case we hope to increase their understanding of the ones they communicate with. Furthermore, we will provide recommendations that might prove to be of use for institutions facing a situation similar to that of Chisinau City Hall.
Hereafter we will refer to Chisinau City Hall as CCH.
1.2 Research questions and objectives
The main purpose of the thesis is to investigate how CCH conducts citizen communication today, and how Communicative Heritage might affect that communication. The paper will map out what characterizes this communication today and how citizens and CCH politicians perceive it. Based on the purpose, the formulated research questions are:
1. How does CCH’s communication with its citizens currently compare with the democratic ideal of communication?
2. How does the Communicative Heritage of citizens and CCH politicians affect the CCH citizen communication?
1.3 About Moldova
Moldova was part of the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991, but declared its independence on the 27th of August 1991. What followed was a turbulent period characterized by an economic downfall and regional conflicts. Despite the turbulence, the country with its 3,65 million citizens has in the past years taken steps towards a more democratic society (U.S. Department of State, 2011).
Governments with liberal intentions governed Moldova for a long period after 1991. But lack of reforms and voters’ increasing dissatisfaction resulted in Moldovan’s voting the Communists back into power in 2001 (ibid). In the elections of April 2009, the Communist party won presidency once again. However, this election was followed by violent demonstrations, formed by people who accused the Communist party for cheating. This lead to a re- election with a different outcome: the liberal party Alliance for European Integration (AIE) replaced the communist party.
AIE was formed out of four parties and governs Moldova to present day (Regeringskansliet, 2011). The party has 53 of 101 seats in Parliament and makes up a coalition government.
The AIE government launched ambitious reform efforts and placed a clear emphasis on Moldova’s relations with the West and integration with the EU, supported by among others the EU and the World Bank. The current president of Moldova is the Liberal Democratic Party Leader Mihai Ghimpu. The capital of Moldova, Chisinau, is governed by the City Hall. Dorin Chirtoacă, from the Liberal Party, is the current mayor of the City Hall. Despite a liberal president and mayor, there is still considerable support for the Communists. Currently, the Communist Party (PCRM) holds 43 of 101 mandates in the Moldavian parliament (U.S. Department of State, 2011).
Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. About 25% of the population is now living and working abroad and the money sent back to their relatives constitute a significant source of income for Moldova (Regeringskansliet, 2011). Also, diverse ethnic groups populate Moldova.
The country can be said to mainly consist of a Romanian-speaking majority and a Russian- speaking minority. The years under the Soviet Union introduced the Russian culture and language to the country. Today, a great deal of media content is still in Russian and a big part of the population speaks both Russian and Romanian (ibid).
2. Theory
Our theory chapter will be divided into three sections. In section 2.1 we account for what
contemporary marketing and communication theory view as the “ideal” communication. We finish this section by providing criteria, with which we can assert how CCH’s communication compares to this ideal. In section 2.2 we describe why this ideal might not be readily applicable in a
Moldovan context. We account for the importance of cultural and history, and how we aim to include this in our analysis. Finally, in section 2.3 we merge the thoughts of the two prior sections into a concept we have chosen to call “Communicative Heritage”.
2.1 In a perfect world…The ideal citizen communication.
Chisinau City Hall (CCH) wants to communicate with its citizens in a way that facilitates the democratic development in the country (Johansson, 2010). In this thesis the concept of democracy is that of participatory democracy, which stresses the self-development, knowledge, participation and engagement of its citizens (Henneberg, Scammell & O'Shaughnessy, 2009). In the process of creating a participatory democracy, communication is central. Communication and dialogue are the prime functions, which enable participation. Therefore, it is crucial for CCH to communicate with its citizens in a way consistent with these values to foster the democratic development. The purpose of the first section is to develop a theoretical understanding of how CCH ideally should communicate to achieve democratic communication. To develop such an understanding, we have turned to marketing, marketing communication and political marketing literature.
2.1.1 Listen and talk to thy customer- Relational Communication
In recent years, the marketing literature has focused on how to create and maintain relationships (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995). As opposed to the traditional approach to marketing, Relationship Marketing focuses on the value creation between customer and company (Grönroos, 2007, p. 28) and long-term relationships (Blomqvist et al., 2006, p. 27).
A corresponding development has been seen in the field of communication theory (Duncan &
Moriarty, 1998; Finne & Grönroos, 2009). Both marketing- and communication theory has moved from a functional, mechanistic one-way communication model, to a more humanistic, relationship- based one, where focus is on relationships, meanings and social processes (Duncan &
Moriarty, 1998). When developing a relationship, both parties talk and listen. The new, relationship-oriented way of viewing communication sees marketing as a social process of creating knowledge, meaning and identity (ibid).
A crucial notion in a relationship- based approach is the balance of power. The customer is not assumed to be subordinate, as both parties have equal rights and are motivated to participate in the process of dialogue. Either party can therefore initiate interaction (Varey, 2002, p. 104-105).
2.1.2 Reading between the lines - The message
As opposed to the traditional approach to marketing, Relationship Marketing also has a different view of the message and the customer in the communication process. The traditional approach focuses on an active sender and a passive receiver (Finne & Grönroos, 2009, p. 181), where the message is embedded with a pre-existent meaning to be transmitted to the recipient (Varey, 2002, p. 93-94). In the Relationship Marketing view, where both parties in the process should meet on more equal terms, the active consumer creates meaning from the message (Varey, 2002; Finne &
Grönroos, 2009).
Finne & Grönroos (2009) propose that the way consumers create meaning from the messages organizations send out is influenced by four factors: historical, future, external and internal. The historical and future factors refer to the receiver’s perception of the history and envisioned future of his/her relationship with the message sender. These factors constitute the time context. The time context is essential, since previous experiences have an impact on current interactions. Feelings of trust and commitment can also carry over into the future and create expectations for future interactions. The historical factors can be experiences, memories and stories (ibid). Future factors can be embedded in the expected future of the relationship (Edvardsson & Strandvik cited in Finne
& Grönroos, 2009, p. 180) or in the person’s life themes (Mick & Buhl cited in Finne & Grönroos, 2009, p. 184). Such future factors can be expectations, goals, hopes or visions (Zeithaml et al.;
Grönroos; Ojasalo cited in Finne & Grönroos, 2009, p. 184).
The external and internal factors constitute the situational context, which refers to the consumer’s individual situation (Finne & Grönroos, 2009). External factors can be culturally situated factors (Mick & Buhl cited in Finne & Grönroos, 2009, p. 185) or the personal context of the individual (Edvardsson & Strandvik cited in Finne & Grönroos, 2009, p 185). Such external factors can be trends, traditions, economic situation, the family and alternative choices, including advertising from competing companies and other communication in the surrounding society. (Finne &
2.1.3 When citizens become customers - Political Marketing Communication Apart from marketing and marketing communication, the philosophy of Relationship Marketing has touched other fields that seem far away from the business world. Henneberg et al. (2011) claim that political marketing may be valuable to promote voter interest and involvement.
Moreover, a relationship- building approach to political marketing can provide a basis for meaningful interactions between voters and political institutions. This approach is named Relational Political Marketing Management (RPMM) and shares many values with Relationship Marketing. Here, the focus is on long-term exchange interactions that benefit all relevant actors and is based on delivering on promises. This approach can develop an active and knowledgeable citizenry, which is paramount for democratic politics. Moreover, RPMM also has the potential to build relationships with the citizens. In order to achieve the objectives of RPMM, the values of the approach must permeate the organization and its communication.
What we have done so far is to account for theories that can help CCH communicate more democratically. As can be seen above, the ideas of Relationship Marketing, Communication and RPMM are built on the same values as the previously mentioned participatory democracy, where the aim is to build mutually meaningful relationships with ones citizens/customers. To communicate in a relational way is thus to communicate in a democratic way. This notion is what we from now on will refer too as the “ideal” communication. One of our research questions regarded how the current communication of CCH compares to this ideal. In order to make this comparison we have used the quality criteria created by Vos (2009).
2.1.4 Vos’ quality criteria for communication
Vos (2009) proposes an instrument to evaluate the quality of communication in municipalities.
The evaluation method measures the degree to which communication strengthens the relationship between citizens and municipal organizations. We consider this focus on relationships to be consistent with the view of RPMM. Therefore, Vos’s (2009) instrument is deemed appropriate for the performed study and it shows us to what degree the communication of CCH is consistent with the values of RPMM.
Vos’ (2009) quality criteria are as follows:
(1) Transparency. Clarity of the message and policy; which requires an organizational culture that values accountability
(2) Accessibility of information and organisation. Citizens and organizations find what and who they are looking for, e.g. through the provision of digital sources of information and contact people; this demands a good system of dissemination and a clear organisational structure as well as an open culture.
(3) Publicity via the media. The municipality is active with respect to media contacts and is as open as possible in supplying information.
(4) Responsiveness. Observing feedback and applying it in making improvements; this demands a monitoring system and the willingness to use feedback.
(5) Interactive policy. The active involvement of target groups (including the ones that are difficult to reach) in policy projects; which requires appropriate procedures and rules as well as a culture centred on collaboration.
(6) Communication policy. Well- considered embedded communication as a policy tool on top of other instruments; which demands strategic consideration and planning.
(7) Effectiveness and efficiency of communication. A result- oriented and efficient use of communication; which calls for well-considered forms of research and cost- conscious procedures.
These criteria constitute a framework that will be used in order to find out how CCH’s communication with its citizens currently compares with the democratic ideal of communication.
In other words, this analysis will help us answer our first research question.
We wanted to evaluate CCH’s communication against a measure. However, we are aware of the
2.2 Reality check- Why ideal communication might not be so “ideal”
In the first part of our theory chapter we outlined theories of marketing and communication, aggregating a communicative framework that should prove suitable for a political actor like CCH.
However, there are several findings from other theorists and fields of research that indicate that simply applying these theories to any context will prove to be difficult, as several of them disregard the factor of culture and past history. This section is devoted to a critique of generic strategies, such as RPMM, and how we might incorporate this critique in our research.
2.2.1 Models based on a western paradigm
First and foremost, one must pay attention to the fact that all the theories in the previous section stem from a western society. McQuail (2005, p. 62) speaks in terms of a dominant paradigm when referring to theories developed from the west. The dominant paradigm has a normative underlying view originating from the society in which they were constructed. These theories presume a normally functioning “good society” which is democratic, liberal, pluralistic and orderly. Kuo and Chew (2009) state that prior to the 1980´s any cultural differences in findings were in fact treated as “errors” or individual differences. But Chen (2009) speaks of how a growing body of research came to show that cultural differences made up for more than just random errors in the building of theory. Critique has been directed towards the Eurocentric domination. According to Asante (2006), the main problem of this domination is the attitude of “Western triumphalism” that is reflected through aggressive individualism, chauvinistic rationalism and ruthless culturalism. The individualism embedded in the western paradigm celebrates self-reliance, autonomy, independence and individual liberty. Without consideration for cultural differences, this approach does not regard that other societies might have a different view of democracy. The models created from these theories of communication are therefore based on an idealized view of western society and communication.
2.2.2 Culture and history matters
Even though some of the theories mentioned in the previous section do adopt a contextual approach when studying communication, it can be argued that these attempts are not sufficient for encapsulating the complex factor of culture and history. In order to correct this problem of discounting culture and history, several researchers have attempted to create a culture specific approach to better understand human communication. The reasons for including, or focusing on, culture and history are plenty. Culture is both the means and values raised from distinctive social groupings and classes. The values and means in turn originate from these groupings’ historical conditions and relationships through which they have learnt to interpret reality (McQuail, 2009).
Sparks (2010) states that each society has its own historical trajectory, which is also embedded in distinctive cultural characteristics. Likewise, Chen (2010) argues that every culture has its own specific traits and that therefore scholars should study the culture from its own perspective to better understand its uniqueness. Bouchet (2009) states that all actions and ideas in every society are in some way related to fundamental assumption of the meaning of life. It is not, then, unlikely to believe that cultural and history has an impact on the activity of human communication. In line with this, Kuo & Chew (2009) argue that there is a connection between communicative patterns and the sociocultural context in which the interactions take place. Therefore each culture approaches communication from a different angle and this manifests itself in distinctive features of the communication.
2.2.3 Interpreting messages
So, from what we can see, culture and history are important factors when studying communication. As mentioned earlier, market communication has in recent years focused on how consumers create meaning from messages. This development was inspired by Stuart Hall (1980), who coined the expression “polysemic”. Polysemic basically means that a message can have a plurality of meanings, depending on the person who interprets it. This means that receivers often
According to the theories above, the history and culture of a society are very likely to affect an individual in their creation of meaning. McQuail (2006) supports this by stating that messages have multiple meanings, which are interpreted according to the culture of the receiver (McQuail, 2006). This means that if a Moldovan person have a different history and culture than a western person, they are also likely to understand a message differently.
In the earlier section of the theory we described the model of Finne & Grönroos (2009). This model states that external, internal, historical and future factors influence the creation of meaning.
By accounting for all these factors we believe that this model can overcome the problem of discounting culture and history. However, this model has only been used in a business context, where there has been limited variance of the external and historical factors. In other words, the model has been applied to the communication between customers and brands, where the respondents have had similar, western, culture and history. In this thesis we apply this model in a different context. We use Finne & Grönroos (2009) to analyse the communication between citizens and politicians. Furthermore, we apply the model to a society, which do not have inherently democratic values. By doing this, we wish to expand the variance of external and historical factors, as we argue that this will help us to better understand how CCH and its citizens communicate. This is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Model of Meaning creation
So in order to understand how receivers create meaning out of a message, researchers must pay respect to the factor of culture and history. Only then can a suitable communication strategy be developed. However, one can question what the aim of such a strategy would be. In order to establish how actors should reach “good” communication, and democracy, theorists must also have underlying assumptions of what constitutes good communication and democracy. These assumptions do not necessarily have to hold true for societies with a different culture and history than the western ones.
2.2.4 But what is “good” communication anyway?
Transition theory is a field within political science that has gained plenty of attention. It specializes in the study of societies in transition; often societies undergoing major political changes, such as Moldova’s strive for democracy. Sparks (2010) states that the main claim of transitology was, and is, that the societies in question were not only moving away from dictatorship but that they were also moving towards democracy. Furthermore, it argues that democracy can only be reached by the rejection of communism and creation of a market economy.
The problem with Transition Theory is its underlying assumptions.
According to Sparks (2010) transitology operate with an oversimplified, and idealized, definition of democracy. While democracy, and democratic communication, certainly depends upon economic and political arrangements, these are in turn the product of cultural factors. The cultural factors are deeply embedded and very long lasting. He continues with describing how Transition Theory also rests on the assumption that all developing societies will eventually converge into this ideal, western, version of a democratic society, and reinforce the norm described.
This creation of a set path for former communist societies is good example of how a western view leaves its imprint on theoretical development. This simplification of democracy and disregard for the unique conditions within a society might prove the theory less useful. Gross (2008) states that without the understanding and identification of dominant values, attitudes, behaviours and mentalities that fuel the functioning of politics, political, economic and social systems and institutions, we cannot possibly construct a credible model of post-communist communication.
The purpose of including this section about Transitology is to shed light on the fact that Moldova might not develop the way we suggest. They are in fact the only former Soviet state that democratically voted the Communists back into power. We therefore hope to develop our conclusions with a sense of self-criticism, keeping the underlying assumptions of Transitology in mind.
2.3 Communicative Heritage – A broader perspective
In the last theory section, 2.2 we focused on critique of the theories and strategies put forward in 2.1, the ideal communication. This has been done for the reason being that Moldova is a developing nation belonging to the eastern block of Europe. As part of a developing, and former Soviet, nation, it is likely that the people of Chisinau possesses a different culture and history than the western, dominant paradigm account for. This heritage is likely to affect the meaning creation of messages sent between CCH and its citizens. Culture is what society draws on when we are to relate to the present and create the future (Bouchet, 2009). It is therefore pivotal to include and focus on history and external factors when understanding the communication of a political actor like CCH.
In our pursuit to better understand the communication between CCH and its citizens, we have looked at theories concerning both communication and cultural history. In this last section we aspire to combine these thoughts into a concept we choose to call ”Communicative Heritage”.
We have learnt from previous sections that historical, future, internal and external factors all contribute to how individuals create meaning from messages. Furthermore, we argue that these four factors also influence the sender of the message (e.g. a company, political institution) and therefore will affect the message that is sent out. If you are brought up in an environment where there has never been a dialogue between citizens and politicians, we suggest that both citizens and politicians might find it difficult to communicate to one another.
Our concept of Communicative Heritage builds on this notion, that cultural history has shaped the way we communicate, regardless if we have been raised in democracy, or under a dictatorship.
We have therefore chosen to emphasize culture and the history of the Moldavian society in each one of the four factors. Furthermore, we believe that this Communicative Heritage might pose as a barrier to change the communication of a society. Hence, if Chisinau wish to change their
communication; it may be argued that the Communicative Heritage will act like a filter or barrier for this change.
3. Method
3.1 Choice of method
The nature of our research is both explanatory and exploratory. It is explanatory in the sense that we aspire to explain the role of Communicative Heritage in the process of communication.
However, the research also is exploratory, since our aspiration is not to verify known
relationships, but rather to explore a new relationship, largely ignored by the literature (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 138-141). To explore this relationship between Communicative Heritage and communication, we needed to ask respondents complex and open- ended questions that reveal their thoughts and attitudes. Therefore, a qualitative approach was deemed to be most applicable to our study.
Our collected data consist of semi- structured interviews with senders of CCH communication and receivers of this communication. This, in order to see how the communication is perceived by both sides, but also in order to map the Communicative Heritage of both senders and receivers.
The interview questions were divided into two types with a different purpose for each. Firstly, we wanted to see how the communication of Chisinau City Hall differs from Vos’s ideal of
communication. To reveal this, we constructed questions with guidance by the seven
communication quality criteria mentioned in Vos (2009). By using an already practiced tool to evaluate the quality of municipal communication we increase the validity of our findings.
The second type of questions was asked in order to understand what role Communicative Heritage plays in the process of communication. To understand this, we have formulated questions based on the model of meaning creation found in the chapter 2.3. Our questions are aimed at exposing the respondents’ internal, external, historical and future factors mentioned by Finne & Grönroos (2009). To see which question measures what, please see Appendix 7.2.
The data was collected in order to answer the research questions and see if the Communicative Heritage can explain the way Chisinau City Hall conducts citizen communication. The interviews were recorded with an audio recorder and thereafter transcribed. The resulting material was then analysed with a starting point in presented theories.
3.2 Choice of respondents
The choice of respondents was divided into two steps. The first step included the division of respondents into the senders and the receivers. The second step was to choose and contact the most relevant respondents. We chose to interview three respondents on the sender side, namely politicians of the Chisinau City Hall that work within the field of communication or have knowledge about citizen communication of Chisinau City Hall.
We chose divide the receivers of communication into two categories: the citizens and the experts.
The inclusion of the group citizens is motivated by the fact that we intend to focus on citizen communication in our thesis. Holme & Solvang (1997) inspired us to also include a second category, experts. They claim that the richness of data can be increased by choosing respondents who posses knowledge about the researched phenomenon. This includes people who are more likely to be aware of, or reflect upon, their situation (Holme & Solvang, 1997, p. 104). All together we decided to interview three respondents on the sender side and eight on the receiver side (five citizens and three experts).
A local manager, who works for the Swedish PR bureau BNG in Moldova, helped us to pick respondents. The valuable local knowledge and local network of this employee was of great help in choosing the most appropriate respondents for our thesis. To be able to get a more nuanced picture of reality, we tried to pick respondents of diverse age, educational background, political conviction and occupation. We assumed that our respondents would possess a Communicative Heritage. Therefore, we picked respondents of different age to see whether the Communicative Heritage would be more prominent among older respondents, who have lived in Soviet than in younger respondents who have not. The respondents, and the reasons for why we chose them, are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1- List of respondents interviewed
Respondent Reason of choice
Student, age 20- 25, political conviction:
liberal, studied in Romania (Citizen 1)
To get a young, internationally
experienced person’s view on Moldova and Chisinau City Hall
Russian IT specialist, age 25- 30, political conviction: communist, studied in
Moldova (Citizen 2)
To get a young communist’s view on Moldova and Chisinau City Hall
Manager at an NGO, age 25- 30, political conviction: neutral, studied in Bulgaria (Citizen 3)
To get a view on Moldova and Chisinau City Hall from a young, politically informed person
IT specialist, age 55- 60, studied in Moldova
(Citizen 4)
To get a view on Moldova and Chisinau City Hall from a person that was born during Soviet times
Russian taxi- driver, age 35- 40, political conviction: communist, high school in
Moldova (Citizen 5) To get a view on Moldova and Chisinau City Hall from a person that is a
communist and has no higher education Journalist, age 35- 40, political
conviction: liberal, studied in Romania (Expert 1)
Specialist knowledge about and reflection upon Moldova’s situation and Chisinau City Hall citizen communication
Deputy Head of Mission, Swedish Embassy, age 35- 40, studied in Sweden and Russia (Expert 2)
Rich knowledge about the ongoing developments in Moldova, including communication
Pr- expert, studied in Moldova (Expert 3)
Specialist knowledge about and reflection upon communication
Politician in CCH, occupation:
department for Foreign Relations and European Integration, age: 30- 35, studied in Romania
(Politician 1)
To get an overview of CCH, its work processes and communication, as well as of the ongoing developments in Moldova
Politician in CCH, occupation: adviser of the mayor, age: 35- 40, studied in
Moldova (Politician 2)
To get an overview of CCH, its work processes and communication, as well as of the ongoing developments in Moldova
Politician in CCH, occupation:
department responsible for connection with the public, age: 25- 30, studied in Moldova
(Politician 3)
To get more in depth view of CCH, its work processes and communication
In our analysis part we distinguish between the three categories of interviewees: citizens, experts and politicians. However, when we in the analysis refer to “respondents” it can include all or several of the mentioned categories.
3.3 Source criticism
Criticism can be directed towards the choice of respondents. An increased diversity in terms of respondents’ age, education level, political preference and occupation would probably give more
We want to express awareness that the choices made throughout the thesis (i.e. choice of method, interpretation) have most probably been affected by a number of factors. These factors include our external cultural environment as well as our personalities and interest.
4. Analysis
Our analysis chapter is divided into two sections. Section 4.1 is dedicated to helping us answer our first research question; how CCH’s communication compares to the ideal communication. We analyse this by using Vos’s seven criteria for citizen communication. The full analysis can be found in our appendix. Section 4.2 is in turn dedicated to help us understand why CCH’s communication might be different than the ideal. We analyse this by using Finne & Grönroos model of meaning creation. We finish the analysis with section 4.3, which is dedicated to
describing Chisinaus’s Communicative Heritage. The section will also help us answer our second research question; how this Communicative Heritage affects the communication of CCH.
4.1 CCH citizen communication vs. the ideal of democratic citizen communication
By applying Vos’s (2009) seven criteria for communication quality on the CCH’s citizen communication, we investigate to what degree the communication strengthens their relationship to their citizens. The section below summarizes how CCH’s citizen communication performs on each of Vos’s (2009) seven criteria, taking into account both the citizens’, experts’ and City Hall politicians’ view. A more detailed analysis can be found in the appendix 7.1.
We can see that CCHs citizen communication today has some elements that facilitate democratic communication. For example, the CCH has made some efforts to make their work more transparent for citizens. Such efforts include publishing important decisions online and holding meetings open to the public concerning city matters. These so-called Monday meetings are also available online for the interested parties. Also, CCH politicians want to increase accountability by opening a documentation centre, where citizens can get help with their errands, The documentation centre is integrated with a new e- document system, which enable citizens to follow up on their errands. There are other signs of progress, like the thoughts behind some of the communication channels, and their neutral relationship to media. Another positive element of CCH citizen communication is the willingness of some politicians to listen, monitor and use feedback from citizens.
Despite the above efforts, there is certain scepticism from the citizens towards the CCH, and some of the respondents openly mistrust the institution. Some respondents feel that it is not enough for CCH to present decisions made, they want to know more about the decision process. Moreover, when citizens turn to CCH with their errands, they feel it is hard to get hold of a person who can help them. They also feel that it is hard to know whom to contact with what issues. When it comes to the general responsiveness of CCH, many citizens feel they are not listened to and that they lack a mutual conversation with CCH. To solve this problem, Citizen 3 suggests that CCH should make interaction easier.
There also seem to be many circumstances inside the CCH that lower the quality of citizen communication. Such circumstances include an ad hoc working style, without clear job responsibilities, or a clear system of how to collect and use feedback. Moreover, the CCH does not seem to understand that citizens want more insight into CCH’s work. Overall, communication does not seem to be a priority for CCH. The area has no exclusively dedicated human resources and communication is not approached in a strategic manner.
The main points mentioned above are summarized in Table 2. Moreover, it gives an overview of
Table 2 Comparison with Vos's seven criteria
Criterion Fulfilled Not Fullfiled
Transparency ‐ Publications of decisions on the web
‐ Citizen documentation centre
‐ E- document system
‐ Monday meetings open to the public and available online
‐ Sceptic citizens: unaware of transparency efforts, lack of pro- activeness, unavailability of certain documents
‐ Ad hoc work style, e.g. no work division
‐ Lagging IT skills
‐ Lack of understanding of citizen needs
Accessibility of information &
organization
‐ Not easy to get in contact with the right person
‐ Unawareness of whom to contact with what issues
Publicity via the media
‐ Neutral transparent media relations
Responsiveness ‐ Some politicians have willingness to listen, monitor feedback and use it
‐ Citizens do not feel listened to
‐ No clear consistent system for feedback collection & application
Interactive policy ‐ Asking & collecting citizens’
opinions
‐ Citizens feel a lack of mutual conversation
‐ New channels need to be explored and interaction made easier
‐ Do not always act according to citizens’
voiced opinions Communication
policy
‐ A thought behind the use of some channels: website, billboards
‐ No communication strategy
‐ No human resources exclusively dedicated to communication
‐ Communication not a priority
‐ Ad hoc information flow
Effectiveness &
efficiency of communication
‐ Following up on effects of communication to some degree
‐ No common definition of “communication”
‐ Ineffectiveness of implemented social campaigns
In this section we have compared CCH’s citizen communication with the ideal democratic communication. In summary, we can say that CCHs citizen communication today has some elements that facilitate democratic communication. However, in practice, we find that CCH have quite a long way to go until it can refer to its communication as democratic. In the next analysis we investigate the reasons to why CCH’s communication does fully not measure up to the ideal.
4.2 Meaning Creation Analysis
In our analysis of how CCH’s communication measure up against Vos’s seven criteria for communication, we could interpret that CCH has a long way to go before it can call its communication democratic. In this following analysis we will look further into the reasons why we find a discrepancy between CCH’s communication and the ideal communication. We do this by analysing the factors that influence politicians’ and citizens’ reception and transmitting of messages. This analytical framework is based on Finne & Grönroos’s (2009) model for reception analysis, which includes external, internal, historical and future factors. This analysis will be summarized in Table 3.
4.2.1 External analysis
In this section we analyse the external factors of our respondents. External factors can be culturally situated factors or the personal context of the individual. Such external factors can be
Troublesome History, Troublesome Conditions
As mentioned in the background, Moldova as a region and nation possesses a rather troublesome history. In our interviews several respondents speak about the discrimination towards the Moldovan-Russians that followed the fall of USSR, a conflict that is still present in today’s society (Citizen 2, 3, 5 & Expert 2). Even though several respondents express the positive aspects of living in a democratic society, they also recognize Moldova’s economic downfall after the Soviet Union. The nation has lost many of its exporting markets, and is no longer as stable as during Soviet (Citizen 1, 5, Politician 1 & Expert 2). The citizens express that the establishing of democracy has taken a long time, at least compared to other former satellites states. The majority of them describe it as a long and bumpy road, partly because most of the country’s current leaders were brought up during the former regime (Citizen 1, 4 & Expert 1, 3). Several respondents claim that the people of Moldova feel that democracy has let them down (Citizen 3, 4 & Expert 3).
Political Climate
One factor that characterizes Moldova’s political climate is its low voting records. One expert states that the country has been forced to hold several re-elections because of the low counts of votes (Expert 3). Meanwhile another expert point out that only a small proportion of the population is politically active (Expert 1). In additions to this, Moldovan politics has been characterized by a very volatile party-system ever since democracy was introduced. One expert speaks about how leaders of parties have ”jumped ship” and joined their opponents, how alliances has been formed, disintegrated and then re-formed (Expert 2).
Meanwhile, the political climate and conditions of CCH itself has also shown to be troublesome.
Low wages of politicians, often not exceeding 200 euro are a problem (Expert 1, Citizen 3).
Another important aspect of CCH conditions is that the court and civil laws make it practically impossible for them to dismiss members of staff, even if they do not share the values of the mayor.
A number of respondents express that this causes internal conflicts and lack of consensus within CCH (Citizen 3, Expert 3 & Politician 1, 2, 3). Likewise it is also stated that there is lack of consensus between the government and CCH (Citizen 3).
4.2.2 Internal Factors
In this section we analyse the internal factors of both citizens and politicians. These factors concern attitudes, capabilities, identity and personal interests. The internal factors interplay with the external ones to a large extent, in the way that external factors often form or shape internal ones (Finne & Grönroos, 2009). We start off by looking at how the citizens perceive their situation, and then move on the politicians’ point of view.
Citizens’ Point of View
Distrust in politics and politicians
Throughout our interviews we can detect a rather negative attitude towards politicians. The common denominator in their statements is that of distrust. Two experts point to recently made polls which indicate that people trust the church, but not the police, the politicians or the court (Expert 2, 3). One of the experts (Expert 2) states that there is a general dissatisfaction in politics and politicians and one citizen says that: “Politics is a dirty thing, and most politicians have bathed in that dirt. I think they act mostly out of self-interest” (Citizen 2). The expert that previously mentioned the low voting records explains this by the lack of trust in politicians (Expert 3). Several citizens say that one of the reasons for this distrust is the fact that politicians give empty promises, were nothing is given in return for their vote of confidence (Citizen 2, 5 &
Expert 1).
All of our respondents mention freedom of speech as a token of democracy. Several of them also think that this right has increased since Moldova became independent (Citizen 4, Expert 3).
However, the right to be heard is not fully respected (Expert 1, 2, 3 & Citizen 3, 5). One citizen explains that the citizens have freedom as long as they do not cross anyone’s interests, and that this constitutes a false democracy (Citizen 5). Two citizens state that politicians want to give the impression of listening to the citizens, but in reality the politicians think it is a waste of time, and rather speak to, or consult their colleagues on political matters (Citizen 1, 3). One of the citizens speaks about the political village: “Everyone knows everyone inside the village. Politicians are
One reason behind this false behaviour can be the attitude of politicians towards communication with voters. Citizen 3 exemplifies this by saying that when he coaches politicians and explains the importance of meeting their voters, the politicians often say that he has wasted two hours of their time and that they don’t have time to talk to voters. He believes that politicians are not convinced they have to listen to voters and think they know what the public needs. In this respect CCH is no different, he says.
The Memory of Soviet
As mentioned earlier, most of our respondents are positive about not longer being a part of the USSR. However, several of them also recognize that some things were better during the Soviet period; the stability, less corruption and the economic situation (Expert 1, 3 & Citizen 2, 5).
Expert refers to a poll showing that approximately half of the population never wanted the Soviet Union to disintegrate. “The nostalgia for the Soviet Union is quite strong, but people prefer not to talk about it openly, because it is considered bad taste. This is a hidden issue” (Expert 1).
The memory of Soviet also manifests itself in a perceived difference between the younger and the older generation. The respondents see it as the older generation was brought up in a closed society, while the younger has been brought up with a plurality of opinions (Citizen 3, 4 & Expert 3). The older generation were fostered to be obedient and serviced by the government; which has led them to become more passive (Citizen 3, 4 & Expert 2). Meanwhile, the younger generation, which travels and uses the Internet, is perceived as more focused on participating in society (Citizen 3).
The Internet penetration in Chisinau is quite high (Expert 2). Moreover, the young generation is increasingly using social media to express their opinions (Expert 1, Citizen 4).
As the members of the older generation have less experience of democracy, some citizens view them as less capable of becoming democratic leaders, because they have a different management style (Citizen 4). Or as one citizen expresses it: “The leaders we see in politics right now will never become truly democratic leaders. Their thoughts are structured in a different way/…/ the architecture of their thoughts needs to be changed in order to be truly democratic. Maybe we can change them, but most likely we must change the leaders” (Citizen 3).
Split Identity
The perception between the old and young generation does not seem to be the only factor dividing the nation. The nostalgia for Soviet versus the belief in the future seems to be another point of difference. Those of our respondents that sympathise with the communist party, and are Russian speakers, express very negative feelings about the future for both Moldova and themselves (Citizen 2, 5). Opposed to this, those who have liberal sympathies respond very positively about their own and Moldova’s future (Citizen 1, 3 & Expert 1, 3). One citizen explains this: as there are two irreconcilable opposites of the country (Citizen 1).
New to Democracy
The nation’s brief experience of a rather unstable democracy seems to have had some effects.
Some respondents feel that Moldova, since it is a young democracy, needs strong authoritarian leaders. They state that leaders need to be frightening in order to receive respect, at least from the older crowd (Citizen 3 & Expert 1).
The respondents show further proof of self-awareness when they explain how the Soviet era has made them hesitant to believe in the individual’s role in society. This is elaborated when they speak about how people probably prefer to be passive in their communication with politicians, and how they perceive politics as something that does not affect them (Expert 1, 2, 3 & Citizen 3).
This is exemplified when one citizen speaks about how politicians are responsible for the citizens, but do not think that individuals can affect the politics (Citizen 2). Another citizen confirms that:
“Eastern European people are used to being assisted by the state” (Citizen 1).
One expert illustrates how these remnants of Soviet can be problematic in democratic communication: “If you don’t have a culture of participation it is different. You can establish all the tools and structures in the world, but unless there is a culture of using those kinds of tools they are not going to be used. If you don’t expect your leaders to listen to you, you resort to passive
Moldova’s lack of democratic experience is something that all citizens account for in our interviews, but they also express that they are making progress. “People are learning. This learning is twofold: people are learning to govern in a new way, and also to be governed in a new way” (Citizen 4). This progress is evident in the fact that all interviewed citizens say they want to be asked about their opinion by CCH. Citizen 3 suggests that politicians should talk to citizens personally and provide them with feedback forms. Citizen 4 develops this idea further and suggests that the City Hall should monitor social media for feedback and get inspired by clever ideas.
Politicians’ Point of View
The former section focused on the internal factors of the citizens. To gain a proper understanding of what affects the communication between citizens and politicians we find it important to also account for the politicians’ of view. This section is therefore devoted to give a brief account of the politician’s attitudes and beliefs about Moldova and its citizens.
Soviet Mindset
Politician 2 describes Moldova as more similar to anarchy, where people neither know their rights, nor their obligations. There is a general consensus amongst the politicians that the people of Moldova expect others to solve their problem. One politicians explains that it is a product of Soviet: “People still have a Soviet mentality believing that CCH and the state are obliged to give them things and services for free, like apartments. They, however do not consider themselves obliged to give anything back” (Politician 1). Another politician express it the following way:
“During the past seventy years people got used to someone thinking for them” (Politician 2).
However, two of the politicians regard this behaviour as less true for the younger generation (Politician 2, 3). All of the politicians wish for the people to become more active, recognize their responsibilities, and start to contribute towards society.
As stated above, the Soviet heritage is given as the primary reason behind citizens’ behaviour, where passivity has been transferred from parents to children (Politician 2). Another reason for passivity is the previously mentioned political climate; “The citizens care about politics, although
it has been turbulent for them” (Politician 1). Another politician claims that people remain passive in politics cause there are no genuine political parties. Instead they have political projects were actors enter and exit the arena quickly; “There is no balance, there is no qualitative filling of the parties/…/they don’t stay long, and only look out for themselves. It looks good from afar, but when people look closer it says Made in China” (Politician 2).
New to Democracy
Like the citizens, the politicians recognize that the people have mixed emotions towards the democracy and how to be governed. Further, all politicians agree that citizens are more active now than before, but that they are unaccustomed to certain elements of democracy; “this approach of asking the citizens is quite new, it will take time. Because even for them it is a strange phenomenon, that a political institution would ask them for opinions” (Politician 1). Another politician express it through a metaphor; “Democracy is the food given to these people, but they do not know to eat it, in what hand to hold the fork. Teach them to eat first and then serve it instead!” (Politician 2)
4.2.3 Historical factors
Both the historical and future factors concern the relationship between CCH and its citizens. This relationship is important to understand since it influences the citizens’ creation of meaning out of CCH’s messages (Finne & Grönroos, 2009). Similarly, in our theory chapter we suggest that the way CCH perceives this relationship will affect the way they communicate. Below, we highlight the historical factors, which can be experiences, memories and stories of the relationship between Chisinau City Hall and citizens (Finne & Grönroos, 2009).
Citizens’ Point of View
Two citizens think that the politicians of CCH only do their job just before elections (Citizens 2, 5). Furthermore, many citizens perceive CCH’s bureaucracy as a big problem (Citizen 3 & Expert 3). Lastly, Citizen 1 feels that in order to facilitate change, the politicians inside CCH need to be replaced by a younger generation, keen on reforms.
Earlier in our analysis we compared Vos’s (2009) seven criteria for communication quality with CCH’s communication. This comparison told us a lot about how the Chisinau citizens and CCH politicians perceive CCH’s communication. Both CCH politicians and citizens indicate that a lot of improvements are needed in this area. Apart from the improvements needed on each of Vos’s seven criteria, the respondents have pointed out some additional weaknesses examined below.
Citizen 3 feels that CCH has no direct communication with the citizens in a structured and down to earth manner. He adds that the mayor tends to talk more about abstract projects, forgetting to inform the citizens about the basic ones. In his opinion, this shows a lack of understanding for the needs of citizens, whose primary concern are urgent city problems. Some respondents also feel that CCH should communicate more with the citizens and that this communication should be simplified and made more interesting (Citizen 2 & Expert 3). Expert 2, on the contrary, says that lack of information is not a problem.
Another perceived issue of CCH’s communication is their inability to successfully communicate change. Expert 2 illustrates it the following way: CCH introduced charges for retired people on the trolley buses, who previously were allowed to ride free of charge. The purpose of the policy was to target the city’s social efforts to those who actually need it, and avoid letting retired, rich people ride for free. However, the change was received negatively and even used by the opposition against CCH (Expert 2). He gives other examples of positively intended changes that were unpopular with the public: the ban to isolate walls without professional help and the raised heating prices. He argues that the reason behind the citizens’ negative reactions to these changes is insufficient change communication: “They (CCH) just send out a press release and inform the court and the police, but they never take time to explain the thought behind these policies” (Expert 2).
One respondent speaks of how this lack of understanding for communication is caused by the novelty of open communication in Moldovan politics (Citizen 1). This is further reflected in the fact that many CCH councillors do not have the confidence or training to speak to media.
Moreover, CCH councillors sometimes lack permission of their party to do this, since speaking to the media is a matter of power (Citizen 1).
Despite the above-mentioned weaknesses, several respondents feel that CCH communication has become more democratic with the current administration (Citizen 4,5 & Expert 5).
Politicians’ Point of View
Just like the citizens express some negative feelings about CCH, the politicians are quick to account for the citizens’ flaws. The CCH politicians feel that citizens of Chisinau do not take enough responsibility for the city’s future. Politician 2 says that the citizens of Chisinau, just like the rest of Moldova, have a mentality where they expect others to solve all their problems. He adds that this is the cause behind some of Chisinau’s problems, like how citizens litter the streets with garbage, and don’t care to pick it up. Another politician continues this line of thought: “Some people have the following opinion: let municipalities take care of that trash. Since I pay tax, it is not my problem” (Politician 3). However, Politician 3 acknowledges that the citizens have gotten more active when it comes to addressing CCH with problems in the recent years.
One politician urges the citizens to think differently: realize their problems and start respecting both themselves and others. He also adds that moral values should be more emphasized, not only the material ones. Someone needs to explain to the citizens, that there is a necessity of new thinking.
The politicians have also pointed out some additional weaknesses in their own citizen communication, apart from the improvements needed on each of Vos’s seven criteria. One respondent says that citizens seem to be ill informed about CCH and what they do (Politician 1).
Politician 1 suggests that CCH needs to improve this by using more channels and increasing visibility. However, this respondent also feels that citizens should make a contribution by informing themselves more. When it comes to change communication, the CCH politicians, as opposed to the citizens, do not seem to think that change has been communicated badly. All politicians express that they feel misunderstood when it comes to the heating and trolley bus reforms. One politician expresses frustration about people who do not understand that these reforms were made in order to achieve a better standard of living for the citizens (Politician 3).
