Font Size: 

The world of politics is characterized by competing and conflicting values, rationales and goals. If this holds true for everyday political life it becomes even more so in times of crisis; defined by uncertainty, shortage of time and threats to fundamental societal values and norms (Boin et al, 2005:2). Moreover, in times of crises, the demands on political leaders to explain and justify their decisions and the rationales underlying them amplify significantly due to pressure from the public and media (Putnam et al. 2000; Graber 2005). However, crises do not only pose a threat but also an opportunity for actors to propose pet-policies and to enhance organizational or personal carriers, so called crisis exploitation (Boin et al, 2009). Research on crisis management identifies certain types of crises as more suitable for actors with an interest in playing the blame and opportunity-game. The most extreme example might be wars with its inherent potential for enemy constructions. At the other end of the spectrum we find compounded crises, such as financial or ecological crises, which due to the involvement of various causes and actors are less suitable for straightforward rationales (Edelman, 1988). Yet, financial crises do render both political success and failure.

In this paper we explore the mechanism behind leader’s ability to win praise and support in the midst of financial crises by exploring one such case of crisis exploitation; the Swedish Government’s communication during the financial crisis 2008. Looking back at the first term in office for the Centre-right Alliance Government, the government was initially struggling with historically low results in the regular opinion polls and a new electoral victory seemed to be beyond reach. However, this trend changed completely during the midst of the financial crisis and the government and its most prominent ministers from the dominating Moderate Party regained public support and confidence and were able to win the next National Elections in Fall 2010.

The main objective of this paper is to analyze government communication strategies during the financial crisis in Sweden 2008-2010, and discuss how the members of an unpopular government managed to frame themselves as competent crisis mangers. The paper focuses on the use of rhetorical crisis strategies in different phases of the financial crisis: how such strategies were developed within the government, and in interplay with other public actors, and how they were reflected in the media during the crisis. Empirical data is based on personal interviews with government and public officials during the crises, as well as public policy documents and national news media content during Fall 2008.

The paper intends to add new theoretical dimensions to crisis communication studies, as previous research on rhetorical crisis strategies have mainly been focused on the allocation of blame and the art of apologia (Benoit, 1995; Hearit, 2001; Coombs and Holladay, 2002; Brändström and Kuipers, 2003; de Vries, 2004). We argue that it is necessary for successful crisis communication in this field also to be related to political leaders’ ability to play the rhetoric game of expectation-, image-, and moral management.