In a competitive party-based democracy the constitution demands that a general election be held following a set period of time and this limits the legislative period of a democratic government (...). And since democratic politics is subject to consent and substantiation, the actions taken by politicians and policy makers have to be justified continually by the politically active public. Policy makers and politicians also have a duty to inform the public about political plans and decisions and generate attention for them. General elections represent the peak of a politically inspired process to create "legitimation through communication". However, this should not obscure the fact that this process is permanent and designed to run over the long-term - not least because political action itself is also communicative action.

Murray Edelman developed a concept of "symbolic politics" which now forms the bedrock for understanding political communication. Edelman's approach assumes a doubling of the political reality. He assumes that all political actions and events are characterized by a division into an instrumental dimension, that is, a principal value - which represents the actual effect of a political action - and an expressive dimension, that is, a dramaturgical symbolic value - which represents the presentation of the action for the public. According to Edelman, political players subconsciously and based on their own roles produce a make-believe political world for the electorate using political symbols and rituals for and by the mass media; this process is increasingly being superimposed upon the principal value of political actions.

Following on from this, Ulrich Sarcinelli also makes a distinction between production (creation) and presentation (communication) dimensions of politics, between principal and symbolic political values. According to Sarcinelli, material (producing) politics is increasingly losing its importance as a decisive element. In contrast, the "mediatization" of politics, that is, the presentation and "packaging of politics tailored to the needs of the mass-media and in particular those of TV, is becoming increasingly important in the maintenance and pretence of a politically capable leadership. Verbal symbols (catch phrases such as 'Euro', Tax Reform etc.) and non-verbal symbols (anthems, flags, shaking hands when receiving state guests etc.) generate attention. In addition to this, they reduce the complexity of political problems, communicate a certain way of looking at the world and stimulate emotions among the viewing pubic.

Political symbols, however, do not exclusively serve the communication and presentation of political reality. Given the intense competition among parties for media attention, political symbols can and are instrumentalized to create a make-believe political reality. The term "symbolic politics" represents this very use of political symbols in the political communication process. The imprecise and mostly disparaging use of this phrase in everyday life makes clear the widespread criticism of the use of symbols in politics. But this criticism overlooks the fact that a "pure" politics, that is, politics based on "principal values" without dramaturgy and without additional symbols cannot exist. Ever since the dawn of politics, symbolism has been an unavoidable constituent of political reality. It represents a forum for policy makers in which they can present themselves, prove their problem-solving abilities and communicate their basic political direction, values and standards. And given that the vast majority of the population is unable to experience directly politics in all its complexity, the media, for the most part unnoticed by the public, is presented with a more fitting version of politics in the guise of rituals, stereotypes, symbols and well-known thinking to fit in with the accepted view of "political reality": While this political 'production' becomes political reality for the public, real political actions that are hammered out "well out of the media spotlight" remain largely in the dark.

[Taken from: Jens Tenscher: Politik für das Fernsehen – Politik im Fernsehen. Theorien, Trends, Perspektiven; in: Ulrich Sarcinelli (Hg.), Politikvermittlung und Demokratie in der Mediengesellschaft, Bonn BpB 1998]