‘Plastic politics’: how ideological debate was supplanted by abstract jargon
Over the course of the 20th century, politicians increasingly came to rely on experts. Their language was peppered with terms like ‘policy pathways’ and ‘evaluation frameworks’. This made debates more abstract and less ideological, says historian Ruben Ros.
With the aid of language models, Ros, a PhD candidate, analysed thousands of parliamentary debates held between 1917 and 1994. His conclusion: politicians became more likely to refer to reports and figures and less likely to refer to convictions or ideals. He discovered a clear increase in ‘technocratic jargon’ in parliament.
How do you explain this increase?
‘Politics changed after the First World War. The expansion of enfranchisement and the rise of different political movements led to more conflicts and debates in parliament. To politicians across the spectrum, politics felt messy and amateurish. Hoping to tame it with expertise, they therefore called more on experts. This technocratic reflex can clearly be heard in parliament. The debate gained in depth and substance, but lost its ideological openness.’
For which topics did politicians begin to rely on expert knowledge?
‘From the crisis in the 1930s, politicians turned to specialists for guidance on how to intervene in the economy. The same applied to complex issues such as infrastructural development and agricultural reforms. From the 1970s onward, this increased in areas such as environmental pollution. Today, there is no policy domain that does not depend on the scientific knowledge and institutions such as the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (CPB).’
Isn’t it a good thing that politicians rely on expertise when dealing with complex topics
‘Yes, the role of the state has grown massively, so more knowledge and expertise is important and inevitable. But to laypersons, it makes debates less accessible. They often focus on what is realistic and responsible from the perspective of scientific knowledge, and much less on political ideals.’
Can you give examples of this shift?
‘During the interwar period, socialist politicians linked agriculture to the class struggle and the welfare of farmers and workers. But by the 1980s, agriculture was discussed almost entirely in isolation, with little connection to other themes. Another example is environmental pollution, which entered the political agenda in the late 1960s. Soon after, parliamentary language began to treat the issue less as part of a broader narrative, such as planetary boundaries, and more as a technical matter of policy pathways and priorities.
‘So politics has taken on a more administrative and technocratic character. I call this plastic politics: politicians act as though they are dealing with very concrete issues, but often speak in abstract terms such as trajectories and evaluation frameworks. This abstract language has grown significantly from the 1970s.’
Your research runs until 1994. What’s your view on current debates? Topics likes migration and healthcare often seem ideological.
‘Debates on healthcare and migration are often heated, but they tend to take place within a very technical framework. How affordable is health care? What should the net migration figure be? Open ideological conflict is limited – or it is one-sided, leaning to the right. Populism is, in part, a response to technocratic politics.
‘At the same time, technocracy and populism are two sides of the same coin: both bypass the democratic process through parliament. Populists argue that politicians should listen directly to the people. Technocratic politicians tend to hide behind numbers and statistics. But the CPB’s models contain many assumptions about the economy. Knowledge is important, but it shouldn’t be presented as the sole truth that politicians blindly follow. I think science should serve not as a compass, but as an oar.’