Public Administration and Information Technology 13 Bogdan Pătruţ Monica Pătruţ Editors Social Media in Politics Case Studies on the Political Power of Social Media Public Administration and Information Technology Volume 13 SeriesEditor ChristopherG.Reddick,SanAntonio,USA For furthervolumes: http://www.springer.com/series/10796 ThiSisaFMBlankPage Bogdan Pa˘tru¸t • Monica Pa˘tru¸t Editors Social Media in Politics Case Studies on the Political Power of Social Media Editors BogdanPa˘tru¸t MonicaPa˘tru¸t VasileAlecsandriUniversityofBacau Bacau Romania ISBN978-3-319-04665-5 ISBN978-3-319-04666-2(eBook) DOI10.1007/978-3-319-04666-2 SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2014938101 ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2014 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerpts inconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeing enteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.Duplication ofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightLawofthe Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter. ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with respecttothematerialcontainedherein. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) Foreword Web Social Media, Politics, and Civism Ever since O’Reilly used the expression web 2.0 in a 2005 conference, amplified attentionhasbeenpaidtoitinmanyaspectsofsociety,organizations,andindivid- uals. First conceptions on Web social media followed the cyber optimism that characterized the studies about the Internet in the 1990s. Studies emphasized the powerofthetechnologyanditscapacitytoovercomephysical,economic,political, social,andindividualobstacles(Curranetal.2012). Web social media have become an integral part of contemporary society and discourse.Argumentsstatedthattheysupportthehumanneedforsocialinteraction, using Web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one to many)intosocialmediadialogues(manytomany). There are Web social media solutions to just about every need, and they are designed to be disseminated through social interaction; they were created using highly accessible and scalable publishingtechniques. Web social media supporta sort of knowledge and information “democratization,” transforming people from contentconsumersintocontentproducers,or“producers”. In the digital context, the individuals can be active, and they can produce and manipulate contents in an easy and quick way. Consequently, they stop being dependent on info-communication hierarchy, assuming the control over the con- tents that interest them. As producers of online contents, the active participants become,consequently,leadersofopinionandcreatorsofnoiseandbuzz,thatis,of wordofmouth. The possibility of the user to contribute to web-content development, rate, collaboration, and distribution, as well as to customize Web applications, defines “participative web” and user empowerment. For instance, the effective participa- tion of common Web users gives place to user-generated content (or user-created content),thatis,tocontentmadepubliclyavailableovertheWeb,createdoutside professional routines and practices, using a variable amount of creativity, and sharedamongInternetusersatanincreasingspeedthankstobroadbandavailability. v vi Foreword Usersthatgeneratecontentaremotivatedbyfactorsthatincludepeerinterrelation, thepursuitoffame,notoriety,andself-expression.Asaconsequence,theWebcan be seen as an open platform, enriching diversity of opinion and the free flow of informationthatotherwisewouldnotbeavailabletocitizens. In sum, social media tools can take various forms (more or less sophisticated) and fulfill various needs, which may have existed previously or may not. Never- theless, the use of the expression “social media” is nowadays associated to Web technologyduetoitsfollowingmaincharacteristics:socialmediatoolsaregener- allyavailabletoanyoneatlittleornocost;theyaretoolsthatenableanyone(even private individuals) to publish or access information—audience fragmentation; they have the capability to reach small or large audiences; they are user-friendly, i.e., anyone can operate the means of production; they are real time, i.e., they are capable of virtually instantaneous responses and only the participants determine anydelayinresponse;theyexhibitliquidity,i.e.,socialmediacanbealteredalmost instantaneouslybycommentsorediting. Yet, it is important to stress that the produced content has been for own consumption,sinceWebsocialmediausershavebeenmorekeentocreatepopular culture-oriented and everyday life-oriented content. As such, producers’ content production has been mostly part of a context of consumption (Jo¨nsson and O¨rnebring2011). Optimism around Web social media must be moderate. Since this optimism surroundsthepotentialofthetechnology,dazzlingtheroleplayedbyhumanbeings withmotivations, pre-concepts,beliefs, andeconomicandculturalidiosyncrasies. Afterall,itisthehumanprerogativetochoosewhethertousethetechnologyandto decidehowtouseit.Additionally,economicaccessconstraintsandunequalcontrol of the Internet (e.g., in less democratic countries such as Saudi Arabia or China) mayunderminethe“TechnologiesofFreedom”conception(Pool1983). While being recognized as bringing forth the need to inform about everything withtransparencyandattherightmoment,theInternetprimarilycontributestothe availabilityofanumberofextendedhorizontalchannelsofcommunicationandan immensevolume ofinformation, which can beturned intoknowledgeandleadto enhancedfreedom ofchoice, consequently transforming informed consumers into moredemandingpatrons.Nevertheless,andasnotedbyJamesCurran,theInternet didnotgive birthtoanew economyor toanew kind of politics.The advantaged (largecompaniesandpoliticalelites)tendtobethemostactive,andtheimbalance isreproducedinonlineactivism(Curranetal.2012,pp.13–14). As a communication technology, the Internet has also been used in political campaigns to spread messages and contribute to inform and engage voters. How- ever, “the use of digital network technologies to shape public policy is generally metwithincredulitybymostpoliticians,publicservants,andcitizens”(Chadwick 2009,p.12).Publicinterestinpoliticscanbelimited(politicaldisaffection)andthe online realm can be envisaged as a place to “have fun” and “to pass the time” (Curranetal.2012,p.14). The relation between Web and Politics has been studied by several authors, to name a few: Wilhelm (2000), Norris (2001), Bennett and Entman (2001), Lax Foreword vii (2004),Shane(2004),Hindman(2007),Dahlgren(2007,2009,2013),Mossberger et al. (2008), Coleman and Blumler (2009) who tried to state the importance and limitationsoftheseinstrumentstodeepentherelationbetweencitizensandpolitical actors. The main concerns of the researchers were citizens’ information, their partici- pationandengagementinpoliticallifeanddebate,andthecommunicationbetween political actors and citizens. While in early researches, some optimism could be found and the Web was presented as a tool that would motivate and deepen the relationshipbetweencitizensandpoliticians,lateronesfocusedattentionuponthe lossofcontroloverinformation,thelackofcitizens’interestingeneralpolitics,and theremaininginequalitiesofaccess(toWebandtopoliticalinformation). Nevertheless,andaccordingtoPhillipsandYoung(2009),successinpoliticsis now highly influenced by the online activities of political institutions. On this platform, they can exchange views on the latest political developments or hot topics, inviting the public and citizens to comment and adhere to their political programs(PhillipsandYoung2009,p.88).Asapotentialwayofescapingthe“top- down” politics of mass democracy in which political parties make policies with low-levelparticipationorcitizens’involvement,theWebprovidesmeansforhigh differentiationofpoliticalinformationandideasand(atleast)theoreticalpossibil- ities of participation and high level of involvement in negotiations and feedback between leaders and followers. However, a significant limitation to this online involvementisthelackofinterestoftheelectors(Lax2004,p.226).Evenifthey have access to Internet, that does not mean that they will spend time engaging in politicaldebate,becausemostpeoplesimplydonotbother. Asawhole,itisourbeliefthattheInternethasnotfundamentallychangedthe nature of political action (Hindman 2008). It only provides tools that empower people to have a more direct, constant, and personal participation in the formal politicalprocess—iftheywantto.Besides,asNielsen(2010)alsorealized,“mun- dane Internet tools” (such as Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail) are more deeply integrated into mobilizing practices in political campaigns than emerging and specializedones,sinceitsubiquityatteststotheirimportance. InthesameveinofWebsocialmediaandpolitics,the academia hasalsobeen paying attention to the use of social media in civic engagement and grassroots movements.Allovertheworld,socialmediahaveservedasplatformforspreading word for riots organization, agency, and participation, sometimes with large con- sequences in the political and social life of countries (e.g., Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, and Anonymous). Traditional media give voice to these movements, butthekick-offstepsandtheiractivityarecontinuousandorganizedonWebsocial media. Following Curran’s thoughts, “the Internet is a very effective mode of communication between activists,” linking them together, facilitating interaction, andmobilizingthemtoaplaceinashortnotice(Curranetal.2012,pp.14–15). Still, and like in political engagement, inequalities can be pointed regarding levels of participation and involvement (Shirky 2008) in social movements. In Portugal,forexample,Sebastia˜oandElias(2012)haverealizedthatyoungpeople adheretoslacktivism,preferringtopressthelikebuttontoanyotheraction(share, viii Foreword subscribe,production,offlineparticipation)onFacebookinvolvingcivicpractices (politicalorsocialprotest,solidarity,onlinepetitioning). Theinteractionbetweentechnologyandsocietyiscomplex,andthelatterexerts agreaterinfluenceontheformerthantheotherwayaround.Afterall,technologyis atoolcreatedbymantohelphimliveinsociety.Consequently,whenresearching Web social media, the cultural and the human are elements that cannot be undermined. It is undeniable, though, that the Internet, and particularly, Web social media, have energized andstrengthened activism,allowingactiviststogroup togetherby providingchannelsofcommunicationandtoolsforquickexchangeofideas,group creation,andprotestassembliesarrangements.Moreover,thisiscatchingconven- tional media’s, academia’s, and politicians’ attention: but does the technology strengthenitenoughtosecurerealchangeindemocracy? Social Media in Politics intends to shed light on this question presenting chapterswithoriginalresearchabouttheuseofsocialmediainpoliticalcampaigns, electoralmarketing,riots,andsocialrevolution.Bygivingvoicetoresearchcases from Belgium, Czech Republic, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Romania, Slovenia,SouthAfrica,Turkey,andtheUSA,itpresentsasignificantcontribution foraglobalunderstandingofhowculturalsettingsandthehumanfactorinfluence theuseoftechnologyinpoliticalandcivicdomains. Withthispurposeinmind,thebookisstructuredintothreeparts.Thefirstpartis an introductory one that explores some issues regarding the politics and social mediaconnection,aswellassomemethodologicalmodels.AndreaCalderaro,from the European University Institute, sustains that contextual factors must be taken intoconsiderationinexplainingtheunequaluseoftheInternetinpolitics.Hisstudy focuses on the unequal presence of political parties online across the political systemsof190countries.Inthesecondchapter,LeocadiaD´ıazRomero(University of Murcia) introduces contemporary social movements andtheir Web use intheir activities,especiallytheimportanceoftheWebincivicengagement.Thischapter alsoexploresthepossiblecreationofaglobalcivicsocietyandthecomplementary useoftraditionalandnewmediaforactivism. The characterization and theoretical approach to social movements are devel- opedinthethirdchapter,withexamplesfromninecountriesprovidedbyAmaroLa Rosa,fromtheUniversidadFemeninadelSagradoCorazo´n(Lima). InChap.4,BogdanPa˘tru¸tandIoan-LucianPopaexplaintheuseofgraphtheory forpoliticaldiscourseanalysiswiththeassistanceofthePoliticalAnalystsoftware. This technique is particularly helpful if we consider the importance of political speechanditseffectinpublicengagementandpoliticalinterest.Theidentification ofsharedanddistinctvaluesinpoliticaldiscoursemaybecrucialtounderstandthe influenceofpoliticsinone’slife. ThefirstpartendswithachapterabouttheuseofTwitterintheItalianpolitical electionof2013.GuidoDiFraiaandMariaCarlottaMissaglia(Universita` IULM, Milano) have tried to understand the concrete use of the new media and how politicians actually manage them by analyzing a sample of 41 Italian politicians fromthemainelectorallists. Foreword ix Thesecondpartpresentshowsocialmediacanbeusedinelectoralmarketingat threelevels:localelections,general/parliamentaryelections,andpresidentialelec- tions. This is the most extensive part ofthis volume due tothe need toempathize differences from cultures and countries, such as Belgium (Evelien D’heer, Ghent University), Indonesia (Nyarwi Ahmad, Bournemouth University and Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta & Ioan-Lucian Popa, Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacau, Romania), Italy (Francesca Musiani, Georgetown University and MINES ParisTech),Slovenia (Tomazˇ Dezˇelan,Igor Vobicˇ,andAlem Maksuti,University of Ljubljana), Turkey (Gu¨nseli Bayraktutan, Mutlu Binark, Tug˘rul C¸omu, Burak Dog˘u, Go¨zde Ðslamog˘lu, and Aslı Telli Aydemir), the USA (Porismita Borah, WashingtonStateUniversity),theCzechRepublic(Va´clavSˇteˇtka,AlenaMackova´ andMartaFialova´),andRomania(MonicaPa˘tru¸t,VasileAlecsandriUniversityof Baca˘u), and also to understand if there are variances in the use of social media at local and national political levels. The political institutions may have common- groundprinciples,buttheirorganizationandactors,andtheirproximitywithvoters, are determinant to the ways in which social media are used, and the studies presented in this part are critical for the understanding of Twitter and Facebook usagedifferencesandobstacles. Finally, the third part debates the use of social media in mobilizing people for riotsandrevolutions.ExamplesfromEgypt(JoannaKulesza,UniversityofLodz), Turkey (Kamil Demirhan, Hacettepe University), South Africa (Admire Mare, Rhodes University), Israel (David Levin and SigalBarak-Brandes,MediaSchool, TheCollegeofManagement), andIndia(Dr.Swati Bute,AMITYUniversity) are presented and analyzed. In spite of the focus on social media use in civic partici- pation,studiesinthispartalsoemphasizeethicalconcerns,censorship,andhuman rightsviolations.Thus,inthefinalchapter,DavidMathew(UniversityofBedford- shire) presents social media as cyber tools and virtual weapons focusing the similaritiesof the effects of psychoanalysis andthe more insidious traits ofsocial mediauseinpoliticsandactivism. Lisbon,Portugal So´niaPedroSebastia˜o References Bennett,W.L.,&Entman,R.M.(Eds.).(2001).Mediatedpolitics.Communicationinthefutureof democracy.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of E-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1),10–41. Coleman,S.,&Blumler,J.G.(2009).Theinternetanddemocraticcitizenship:Theory,practice andpolicy.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.