New research from the University of Copenhagen finds that Danish politicians tend to speak less clearly when they come to power, and this shift in language complexity may cost them public support.
Being in Power Leads to More Complex Political Language
Over the years, it has been widely recognized that incumbent political parties often lose voter support—an effect known as the “cost of governing.” However, new research from the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen suggests that the drop in popularity may also be influenced by how government leaders communicate.
A study conducted by Associate Professor Frederik Hjorth analyzed over 1.5 million text snippets from parliamentary speeches in Denmark over the past 30 years. By using advanced language processing technologies, the study evaluated how easily understandable the speeches were and found a clear pattern: once politicians enter government, their language becomes notably more complex.
Three Decades of Debates Reveal Patterns
The study examined speeches from Denmark’s national parliament, the Folketing, comparing the language used by governing officials with those in the opposition. Researchers discovered that members of ruling coalitions consistently adopt more technical and bureaucratic language styles. Interestingly, this pattern reverses when those individuals leave government and return to the opposition, at which point they regain a simpler and more accessible communication style.
Language analysts found that speeches from government officials featured higher amounts of legal and administrative jargon, as well as references to abstract policy concepts. These tendencies are not necessarily intentional, but rather reflect the expectations and responsibilities tied to governing roles.
Why Government Speech Becomes Harder to Understand
The shift in language can be attributed to three major factors: the need to use bureaucratic terminology, the expectations of formal roles such as presenting legislative bills, and the nature of the subjects government ministers often address. Government members are more frequently involved in discussing complex matters such as economic regulations and crisis management, rather than ideologically clear-cut topics like immigration or taxation, which are easier to discuss in plain terms.
These factors create a form of institutional pressure that elevates the level of complexity in how ministers and other government members speak. This doesn’t mean politicians are trying to be confusing, but their role requires precision in discussing nuanced and technical subjects often written in formally structured legal language.
Voters Prefer Simplicity—and Punish Complexity
While governing roles may demand more difficult language, this shift appears to come at a political cost. A key part of the study included an experiment involving over 4,000 Danish participants. It showed that voters consistently rated politicians using simpler language more favorably—even when the policy message remained unchanged.
The implication is clear: voters value clarity and accessibility, and they form more positive impressions of leaders who speak in a straightforward manner. This could partly explain why sitting governments often struggle to maintain support.
Populists Gain From Speaking Plainly
This dynamic may also help explain the enduring rise of populist political movements. Populist politicians are often characterized by their ability to communicate simply and directly, presenting themselves as being in touch with ordinary people. In contrast, government leaders, burdened by their administrative language requirements, may inadvertently reinforce perceptions that they are disconnected from the public.
A notable insight from the study is that the so-called “elitist” tone criticized by many populists may not be a matter of choice, but a structural feature of governance itself. Still, this language barrier could play a crucial role in shaping public attitudes and electoral outcomes.
Communication Skills Shape Political Success
The research points to an overlooked factor in democratic governance: the ability to communicate effectively with the public. As government ministers take on more technical responsibilities, they may lose the rhetorical clarity that resonates with voters.
Understanding this communication challenge could offer strategies for political parties to bridge the gap between policy complexity and public engagement. For example, investing more effort into translating technical content into relatable messages may help counteract the unintended effects of bureaucratic speech.
In sum, governing comes not only with the risk of unpopular decisions but also with an inherent risk of becoming harder to understand—something voters, as this study shows, may not easily forgive.
