How Much Ambiguity Can Democracy Handle?
A research project by political scientist Roni Lehrer shows that voters expect political parties to send clear policy messages—but often end up voting for parties that remain vague on many issues. In the current FORUM, Lehrer explains why that’s not necessarily a contradiction, but a democratic reality.
When political parties start getting vague in their messaging, they often resort to boilerplate phrases like “We need to address this issue” or “This calls for a new approach.” It sounds like action—but says very little. And yet, many voters nod along and mark their ballots accordingly. How does that add up?
That’s precisely what political scientist Roni Lehrer is exploring: What happens when parties are ambiguous? Do voters even notice? And if they do, does it affect how they vote—or how they feel about democracy more generally? Lehrer is a fellow and principal investigator with the research project “Party Policy Ambiguity and its Consequences for Political Representation and Satisfaction with Democracy” at the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES). The project is made possible by a €135,000 grant from the Baden-Württemberg Foundation’s elite program for postdocs, plus €30,000 in additional support from MZES.
“We’re looking at a small piece of the puzzle,” says Lehrer, summing up his research project. “But it’s a piece that matters within a much broader picture: How does our democracy function, and how well does it balance the tension between political power and popular will?”
Clear messaging—not always welcome
Ask people directly whether they prefer clear or ambiguous policy statements from parties, and the answer is nearly unanimous: “I want clear statements.” But when they’re presented with vague political language, a paradox emerges—because many will respond positively to such statements despite their ambiguity. “It might look contradictory at first—but it isn’t,” Lehrer says.
“It’s like so many things in life,” he explains. “In theory, we’re all rational and moral. In practice, we sometimes make different choices—without even realizing it.” Lehrer offers an example: “Ask people if they prefer clear statements, and they will say yes. But if you then give them an ambiguous statement and ask whether they like it, they’ll often say yes as well—as long as they don’t notice the ambiguity.”
Three types of ambiguity
In his research project, Lehrer focuses on three common types of political ambiguity. The first involves internal contradictions within a party—for instance, when one wing supports higher taxes while another pushes for tax cuts. The second involves strategic silence: choosing not to address certain topics. A case in point is the early years of the AfD, which largely avoided taking positions on social policy and focused almost exclusively on migration. The third type of ambiguity is general vagueness—empty phrases like “We need to address the issue.”
Interestingly, while voters tend to recognize internal contradictions and silence as ambiguous, they frequently miss the vague catchphrases. After all, open conflict within a party makes the absence of a clear policy position more obvious. But whether people notice ambiguity in the first place strongly depends on their interest in politics, their prior knowledge of the topic, and their educational background. “You need some knowledge of the topic at hand to understand whether a statement is specific or not,” Lehrer explains.
Taking a firm stance feels risky
This means that ambiguity and vague language can work to a party’s advantage. When policy positions are left open-ended, voters can read their own views into the party’s platform—allowing the party to appeal to a broader range of people. But the flip side is just as real: voters who catch on may feel misled, which can erode trust in politics and democracy as a whole.
Some politicians, Lehrer adds, are reluctant to commit to firm positions because they fear having to walk them back later if circumstances change. Take the minimum wage or marriage equality—two issues that Angela Merkel initially resisted but eventually embraced. “You could say she folded—or you could say she changed her mind in response to new majorities among voters,” Lehrer says. “As a democracy researcher, I don’t think it’s a problem when politicians change their minds once in a while.”
His project is still in the early phase of analysis. Preliminary survey data is in, but no findings have been published yet. Initial insights are emerging, however: ambiguous statements are most effective when voters fail to notice they’re ambiguous. For Lehrer, this implies taking a realistic look at how democracy works: “Voters want clarity—but they also need the skills to recognize it. And that’s a question of civic education, media literacy—and honest political communication.”
Text: Yvonne Kaul / August 2025