Strategic or Haphazard? Understanding Party Ambiguity During the 2019 and 2024 Belgian Electoral Campaigns.

Party ambiguity refers to the presentation of unclear issue positions by political parties. Some view it as a strategic tool to hide unpopular positions, broaden appeal, and avoid accountability (Downs, 1957; Somer-Topcu, 2015). Others argue that it is a risky strategy, contingent on voters’ risk aversity (Shepsle, 1972; Bartels, 1986). Both perspectives, however, share the assumption that ambiguity is a deliberate vote-maximization strategy. This paper challenges this assumption by theorizing that ambiguity can also arise unintentionally. Specifically, we hypothesize that low party discipline increases the likelihood of haphazard ambiguity. In addition, we explore the strategic use of ambiguity beyond vote-seeking objectives. While existing literature emphasizes these electoral incentives, we argue that parties may also employ ambiguity to pursue policy-seeking objectives (Strøm, 1990). Ambiguity can enable parties to highlight their preferred policy issues, particularly in areas aligned with their issue reputations (Frenkel, 2014). To test these claims, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of newspaper articles from the 2019 and 2024 Belgian electoral campaigns. For each campaign, 35 policy issues were selected to capture the relevant space of party competition. We conceptualize ambiguity as a multidimensional phenomenon, measured across three dimensions: vagueness vs. precision, silence vs. emphasis, and inconsistency vs. consistency (Lefevere, 2024). This multidimensional framework allows us to advance our understanding of both the strategic and unintended nature of party ambiguity across dimensions.