Politicians regularly claim to represent groups of citizens, shaping how these groups feel represented. However, most existing studies focus on groups deemed ‘deserving’ of representation or analyze claims made in election manifestos. This study therefore examines the temporal dynamics of politicians’ claims of representation, including both deserving and undeserving portrayals. Using advanced natural language processing methods, we analyze Belgian (Flemish) politicians’ claims on Facebook from 2014 to 2024. Our findings highlight three insights: (1) politicians claim to represent a diverse range of groups, but some face exclusionary claims (e.g. migrants, the rich) or are ignored (e.g. men, sexual minorities); (2) the frequency and focus of claims shift over time, often responding to elections and crises; and (3) inter-party differences in claims-making are more pronounced during non-election periods but narrow as elections approach. This study thereby shows that analyzing temporal dynamics reveals critical patterns in politicians’ representative claims-making.
AndréADepauwSErzeelS, et al (2010) Vertegenwoordigende claims op het net: hoe kamerleden spreken over de groepen die zij vertegenwoordigen. In: Gezien, gehoord, vertegenwoordigd? Diversiteit in de Belgische politiek, pp.205–224.
2.
BaumMA (2013) Presidential Communication Strategies in the Age of Three Medias. In: FoxRLRamosJM (eds) IPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.183–205.
3.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
BerzJKroeberC (2023) Walking the Line: Electoral Cycles and the Shift in Legislative Priorities among German Parliamentarians. Electoral Studies83: 102595.
5.
BirklandTA (1997) After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
6.
BorghettoEBelchiorAM (2020) Party Manifestos, Opposition and Media as Determinants of the Cabinet Agenda. Political Studies68 (1): 37–53.
7.
BorghettoERussoF (2018) From Agenda Setters to Agenda Takers? The Determinants of Party Issue Attention in Times of Crisis. Party Politics24 (1): 65–77.
8.
CastiglioneDPollakJ (2018) Creating Political Presence: The New Politics of Democratic Representation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
CeccobelliDQuarantaMValerianiA (2020) Citizens’ Engagement with Popularization and with Populist Actors on Facebook: A Study on 52 Leaders in 18 Western Democracies. European Journal of Communication35 (5): 435–452.
10.
CostelloR (2021) Issue Congruence between Voters and Parties: Examining the Democratic Party Mandate in Ireland. Irish Political Studies36 (4): 581–605.
11.
CraigSCCossettePS (2020) Who Owns What, and Why? The Origins of Issue Ownership Beliefs. Politics & Policy48 (1): 107–134.
12.
DaltonRJ (2014) Partisan Dealignment and Voting Choice. Developments in German Politics4: 57–77.
13.
DassonnevilleRStiersD (2018) Electoral Volatility in Belgium (2009–2014). Is There a Difference between Stable and Volatile Voters?Acta Politica53: 68–97.
14.
De WildeP (2013) Representative Claims Analysis: Theory Meets Method. Journal of European Public Policy20 (2): 278–294.
15.
De WinterLSwyngedouwMDumontP (2006) Party System (s) and Electoral Behaviour in Belgium: From Stability to Balkanisation. West European Politics29 (5): 933–956.
16.
DeLeoRATaylorKCrowDA, et al. (2021) During Disaster: Refining the Concept of Focusing Events to Better Explain Long-Duration Crises. International Review of Public Policy3 (3: 1): 5–28.
17.
DischLJ (2021) Making Constituencies: Representation as Mobilization in Mass Democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
18.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWC, et al. (2018) Beyond Salience and Position Taking: How Political Parties Communicate through Their Manifestos. Party Politics24 (3): 240–252.
19.
DolinskyAO (2023) Parties’ Group Appeals across Time, Countries, and Communication Channels – Examining Appeals to Social Groups Via the Parties’ Group Appeals Dataset. Party Politics29 (6): 1130–1146.
20.
DuncombeC (2019) The Politics of Twitter: Emotions and the Power of Social Media. International Political Sociology13 (4): 409–429.
21.
EngesserSFawziNLarssonAO (2017) Populist Online Communication: Introduction to the Special Issue. Information, Communication & Society20 (9): 1279–1292.
22.
ErzeelS (2011) Vertegenwoordigende claims en de substantiële vertegenwoordiging van vrouwen in de kamer. Res Publica53 (4): 429.
23.
GerbaudoP (2018) Social Media and Populism: An Elective Affinity?Media, Culture & Society40 (5): 745–753.
24.
GeversIDe MulderADaelemansW (2024) Towards a Large Scale Analysis of Claims: Developing a Machine Learning Method for Detecting and Classifying Politicians’ Claims of Representation. Journal of Computational Social Science7 (1): 917–961.
25.
GrossmanEGuinaudeauI (2024) Tunnels of Attention: Reconsidering Issue Competition. Comparative Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 27 November. DOI: 10.1177/00104140241302756.
26.
GuastiPDe AlmeidaDR (2019) Claims of Misrepresentation: A Comparison of Germany and Brazil. Politics and Governance7 (3): 152–164.
27.
GuastiPGeisselB (2019) Saward’s Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective. Politics and Governance7 (3): 98–111.
28.
HansenKMPedersenRT (2008) Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System. Scandinavian Political Studies31 (4): 408–427.
29.
HeinischRWernerA (2019) Who Do Populist Radical Right Parties Stand For? Representative Claims, Claim Acceptance and Descriptive Representation in the Austrian FPÖ and German AfD. Representation55 (4): 475–492.
30.
HershEDSchaffnerBF (2013) Targeted Campaign Appeals and the Value of Ambiguity. The Journal of Politics75 (2): 520–534.
31.
HoogheMPelleriauxK (1998) Compulsory Voting in Belgium: An Application of the Lijphart Thesis. Electoral Studies17 (4): 419–424.
32.
HornAKevinsAJensenC, et al. (2021) Political Parties and Social Groups: New Perspectives and Data on Group and Policy Appeals. Party Politics27 (5): 983–995.
33.
HuberLM (2022) Beyond Policy: The Use of Social Group Appeals in Party Communication. Political Communication39 (3): 293–310.
34.
JagersJWalgraveS (2007) Populism as Political Communication Style: An Empirical Study of Political Parties’ Discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research46 (3): 319–345.
35.
JoschkoVGlaserL (2019) A New Approach to Map and Quantify Representative Claims and Measure Their Validation: A Case Study Analysis. Politics and Governance7 (3): 137–151.
36.
KissauKLutzGRossetJ (2012) Unequal Representation of Age Groups in Switzerland. Representation48 (1): 63–81.
37.
KlattM (2020) The So-Called 2015 Migration Crisis and Euroscepticism in Border Regions: Facing Re-bordering Trends in the Danish–German Borderlands. Geopolitics25 (3): 567–586.
38.
KreissD (2016) Seizing the Moment: The Presidential Campaigns’ Use of Twitter during the 2012 Electoral Cycle. New Media & Society18 (8): 1473–1490.
39.
LeeEJLeeHYChoiS (2020) Is the Message the Medium? How Politicians’ Twitter Blunders Affect Perceived Authenticity of Twitter Communication. Computers in Human Behavior104: 106188.
40.
LefevereJWalgraveS (2024) De Stemming 2024. DANS Data Station Social Sciences and Humanities, V4. DOI: 10.17026/SS/2WKNLF.
41.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction, vol. 2. New York: Free Press.
42.
LombardoEMeierP (2018) Good Symbolic Representation: The Relevance of Inclusion. PS: Political Science & Politics51 (2): 327–330.
43.
LouwerseTSiebererUTuttnauerO, et al. (2021) Opposition in Times of Crisis: COVID-19 in Parliamentary Debates. West European Politics44 (5–6): 1025–1051.
44.
MarchL (2017) Left and Right Populism Compared: The British Case. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations19 (2): 282–303.
45.
MuddeCRovira KaltwasserC (2013) Exclusionary Vs. Inclusionary Populism: Comparing Contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition48 (2): 147–174.
46.
NorrisPFranklinM (1997) Social Representation. European Journal of Political Research32 (2): 185–210.
47.
PeetersJOpgenhaffenMKreutzT, et al. (2023) Understanding the Online Relationship between Politicians and Citizens. A Study on the User Engagement of Politicians’ Facebook Posts in Election and Routine Periods. Journal of Information Technology & Politics20 (1): 44–59.
48.
PoljakŽSeebergHB (2024) Attacks and Issue Competition: Do Parties Attack Based on Issue Salience or Issue Ownership?Political Communication41 (2): 269–289.
49.
PoljakŽWalterAS (2023) Parties’ Parliamentary Attack Behaviour throughout the Electoral Cycle. Party Politics30: 920–933.
50.
RangelGS (2017) Voting as a (Mandatory) Duty: Citizen Attitudes, Political Engagement, and Party Outreach Under Compulsory Voting. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kentucky Libraries, Lexington, KY.
51.
RobisonJStubagerRThauM, et al. (2021) Does Class-Based Campaigning Work? How Working Class Appeals Attract and Polarize Voters. Comparative Political Studies54 (5): 723–752.
52.
SawardM (2006) The Representative Claim. Contemporary Political Theory5: 297–318.
53.
SchneiderAIngramH (1993) Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review87 (2): 334–347.
SeebergHB (2017) How Stable Is Political Parties’ Issue Ownership? A Cross-Time, Cross-National Analysis. Political Studies65 (2): 475–492.
56.
SeebergHB (2022) First Avoidance, Then Engagement: Political Parties’ Issue Competition in the Electoral Cycle. Party Politics28 (2): 284–293.
57.
SeversE (2012) Substantive Representation through a Claims-Making Lens: A Strategy for the Identification and Analysis of Substantive Claims. Representation48 (2): 169–181.
58.
SidesJ (2006) The Origins of Campaign Agendas. British Journal of Political Science36 (3): 407–436.
StockemerDSundströmA (2022) Introducing the Worldwide Age Representation in Parliaments (warp) Data Set. Social Science Quarterly103 (7): 1765–1774.
61.
StuckelbergerSTreschA (2024) Group Appeals of Parties in Times of Economic and Identity Conflicts and Realignment. Political Studies72: 463–485.
62.
ThauM (2018) The Demobilization of Class Politics in Denmark: The Social Democratic Party’s Group-Based Appeals 1961–2004. World Political Science14 (2): 169–188.
63.
ThauM (2019) How Political Parties Use Group-Based Appeals: Evidence from Britain 1964–2015. Political Studies67 (1): 63–82.
64.
WalgraveSTreschALefevereJ (2015) The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Issue Ownership. West European Politics38 (4): 778–796.
65.
WalgraveSVan ErkelPJennartI, et al. (2020) How Issue Salience Pushes Voters to the Left or to the Right. Politics Low Countries2: 319–353.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
