Politics of Constituency Representation and Legislative Ambition under the Glare of Camera Lights

Abstract

The introduction of legislative television as a transparency initiative has been welcomed in an increasing number of democracies. The impact of television cameras on parliamentary behavior, however, has received scant attention in systems where personal vote‐earning attributes are thought to be of little importance (e.g., closed‐list proportional representation). Additionally, studies examining this relationship relied exclusively on over‐time variation in legislative behavior (i.e., before and after the introduction of television into parliament), which arguably has important deficiencies in demonstrating the true effect of legislative television. Capitalizing on a unique quasi‐experimental setting, the present study aims to close these gaps in the literature by analyzing parliamentary activities in Turkey, where the legislative television was restricted to 3 days per week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) in 2011 after almost two decades of continuous 7‐day operation. Results based on original data sets of parliamentary activities from the pre‐ and postreform periods (2009–11 and 2011–13) indicate that the varying presence of television cameras exacerbated the effect of electoral and reputation‐building motivations on parliamentary behavior, encouraging electorally unsafe and junior MPs to shift their constituency focus to the televised proceedings. The results offer important implications for the study of legislative transparency and constituency representation in party‐list proportional representation systems.

The determinants of the media coverage of politicians: The role of parliamentary activities

“…The first assumes a direct mechanism whereby news media in democratic systems report on politics, in this case by following legislative debates and writing about the speakers and the content. While legislative proceedings are now televised one way or another in most countries in the world (Yildirim, 2020), legislative television is hardly used by individuals in the broader population who still get much of their political information via traditional media sources. For this reason, the media play a decisive role in promoting the political work of legislators, and, by so doing, contribute to accountability and transparency in political processes (Vos & Van Aelst, 2018).…”

Reconsidering the Electoral Connection of Speeches: The Impact of Electoral Vulnerability on Legislative Speechmaking in a Preferential Voting System

“…The burgeoning literature on speechmaking supports the claim that speeches are not a favored venue for cultivating a personal vote. Although there is evidence of using speeches to promote constituents interests (Fernandes, Won, and Martins 2020; Yildirim 2020), the literature also shows that MPs who may benefit more from the speeches are not the most active on the floor.…”

Ethnic violence and substantive representation of minorities in parliament

“…According to the rules of procedure in the Turkish parliament, each parliamentary party as a group and individual members are given the right to speak on the floor. In the Turkish parliament, speeches are highly televised events and give MPs a chance to discuss controversial issues (Yildirim, 2019). Asking PQs is not as time-intensive, but it nonetheless requires preparation and the evaluation of government policies.…”