Abstract
This article discusses digital democracy with particular reference to the political context of the EU. The reasons for adopting tools for digital democracy include fostering closer contact with citizens, sharing ideas, improving the delivery of one's message, crowdsourcing and facilitating digital direct democracy. Twitter has become the medium of choice for Brussels influencers. This is especially so for journalists, whose role has changed in recent years; politicians seem to be following suit. Politicians and political organisations that are actively involved in digital democracy gain the trust of the citizenry if they are approachable and open to discussion and if their online presence reflects their real-life existence.
What is digital democracy and why is it used?
Digital or electronic democracy is described by Gift (2003) as ‘the use of information and communications technologies and strategies by “democratic sectors” within the political processes of local communities, states/regions, nations and on the global stage.’ This article will concentrate on digital democracy especially within the context of the EU, examine some of the reasons for the use of digital democracy, provide some examples of its use, explore the opportunities and challenges it poses to democracy and, finally, through examples, review some of the approaches being taken by politicians and political organisations to keep abreast of new developments.
For the moment, digital democracy has not replaced existing physical democratic institutions; rather, it complements them in different ways. There are several reasons to use the strategies and technologies of digital democracy:
It is especially social media that allow politicians and government officials to get closer to citizens. These media also make politicians and officials more easily approachable by the citizenry.
They allow like-minded citizens to share ideas and organise themselves for political action.
Digital media provide a cost-efficient way of disseminating messages, and of repeating them. According to a study by Edelman (2012), the same message has to be heard between three and five times for it to be believed, and as people spend more and more time on social networks, they can be reached there fairly easily.
Digital networks allow for the crowdsourcing of ideas and are thus a means of empowering citizens. They make it easier for politicians to draw on these ideas and turn them into concrete policies.
These networks enable citizens themselves to become true decision-makers.
Digital democracy around the world
In the following, examples of different expressions of digital democracy are described. The focus is mainly on the EU context, though other national and international examples are also included.
Getting closer to citizens: the CES's TellBarroso
The Centre for European Studies (CES 2009) introduced the TellBarroso campaign in the run-up to the European elections of 2009. As the incumbent Commission President Barroso was the only publicly announced candidate for this post, a web survey was established to invite citizens to make proposals on action to be taken by the future European Commission. Participation in the survey was impressive, as more than 150,000 participants put forward more than 12,000 proposals, which were then viewed more than 500,000 times and resulted in 130 million social media impressions.
Organising for Political Action: The Finns Party in Finland
The populist party The Finns had been a minor party in the Finnish parliament, without significant representation since its glory days in the 1970s. 1
When it was established in the 1950s as an offspring of the Centre Party (then the ‘Agrarian League’), the Party was called the ‘Finnish Rural Party’. After its collapse, the ‘True Finns’ was founded in 1995 as its successor, and in 2011 the party changed its English name to ‘The Finns'–-a move that left many Finns astonished. A literal translation of the Party's Finnish name ‘Perussuomalaiset’ might be ‘Basic Finns’.
Consequently, it received only limited coverage in the mainstream media. However, before the 2011 parliamentary elections, The Finns experienced a remarkable rise in popularity. The success of the party was due in part to the very professional organisation of a network of internet blogs and forums which now enabled individuals who had previously received only marginal support for their ideas to find an audience of like-minded people. Suddenly the supporters of The Finns were the most vocal group online, and the mainstream media could no longer ignore them. As Railo and Vares (2012, 20) state, ‘The role of the Internet and social media as forms of political communication is important, as they–-in principle, at least–-afford a means to bypass the mass media and reach potential supporters directly.’ The Finns exploited social media masterfully during the election. As a result, it became the third largest party, winning 19.1% of the popular vote and increasing its support by an astounding 15% points (Statistics Finland 2011). Subsequently, the party decided to remain in the opposition, although its Eurosceptic ideas had an impact on the European policies of other parties, notably the Social Democrats and the Centre Party.
Getting the message out and repeating it: FTT by the PES
The Party of European Socialists (PES) campaigned actively on social media in favour of including the financial transaction tax (FTT) on the EU agenda (PES 2012). The campaign was championed by both the PES and the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament (EP), and relayed in Member States by their national member parties. The repetition of the message on social media was certainly not the only reason why 11 Member States initiated enhanced cooperation directed at introducing the FTT in January 2013. But the campaign's transnational visibility helped create the impression of a party that proactively advanced concrete proposals for the EU agenda.
Crowdsourcing ideas: YouCut by the GOP
For three years now, the current Republican majority leader in the US House of Representatives, Eric Cantor, has been spearheading the digital campaign ‘YouCut’ (Cantor, n.d.), where citizens are invited to propose items that should be cut from government spending. Using crowdsourcing to identify budget lines considered wasteful and hence good sources of savings, proposals put forward by citizens are taken up and presented on the floor of the House by elected representatives. This digital campaign allows for the quick identification of potential sources of savings, provides supporters with a meaningful way to carry out the electoral programme of the Republican Party and results in concrete legislative action.
Digital direct democracy: electronic voting in Estonia
The best example of digital democracy is the digital direct democracy by electronic voting in the major elections that have taken place in Estonia since 2005 (Estonian National Electoral Committee, n.d.). Starting with municipal elections and then extending the procedure to parliamentary elections, Estonia has been using electronic voting in a process secured by smart ID cards, which allow electronic signatures to be authenticated and to be considered legally binding. Citizens have the choice of a traditional vote in voting booths or a remote vote, either over the Internet or by mobile phone. In the 2011 parliamentary elections, approximately 25% of participating voters cast their votes digitally.
Digital democracy: opportunities and challenges
Digital democracy is not developing in a vacuum. It also opens up possibilities for new types of interactions and resulting behaviours. These changes present challenges that politicians and political organisations need to take into account. In the following, some of the changes occurring in the digital environment are briefly described, especially those linked to the European institutions in Brussels, the ‘Brussels bubble’. The EP has been a worldwide leader in adopting social media. With its more than 700,000 Facebook ‘likers’ and multiple-language Twitter accounts–-which also make news available from each parliamentary Committee–-it provides an example for many national parliaments and international organisations to follow. In this bubble, many tools for political influence are being used, such as blogs, Twitter, wikis, YouTube and Facebook (see Auvinen 2012). However, since it seems that Twitter has become the most relevant tool in this bubble (Vesnic-Alujevic 2013, 29), the focus of the article is on this medium in particular.
Opportunity: changes in the role of the media
The number of foreign correspondents accredited to European institutions has decreased (Quatremer 2010). Their role has also changed, as is described by Henna Hopia in another article in this issue of the European View. This is partly due to increased cost pressures on the media. But the EU institutions themselves have likely caused part of the shift, as it is increasingly easy to follow online what is happening. Webstreaming, constant Twitter updates and the availability of documents online have decreased the need to be physically present in Brussels. However, the need to understand issues and processes remains, and it is only by means of interpersonal relationships that the best scoops are acquired.
Moreover, the roles of journalists have evolved. One younger journalist described the status of some of the veteran correspondents posted to Brussels as being close to that of EU ambassadors. Their comfortable working conditions and expat-like employment contracts almost implied that they needed to advocate the benefits of the Union and its policies in their home countries. Nowadays this has become almost non-existent. Many young journalists are working as freelancers and are poorly paid. They fight for stories, are active on Twitter and follow blogs. They do not necessarily see the EU as a big peace project anymore but treat it as they would any other organisation or governmental institution that is answerable to its citizens and can be freely criticised.
The change in the media landscape has made it necessary for journalists to go social. A study of the UK, German, French and US media reveals (10 Yetis 2013) that they no longer get their stories only from wires. Seventy-five percent of UK journalists get stories from Twitter, and 91% of the German press use Wikipedia to conduct research. Twitter even has a special outreach programme designed to better serve journalists. Facebook has a similar programme. Today's top journalists need to be on social media, especially Twitter, or they risk being at an incredible disadvantage to their competitors, with the likely loss of stories. As a consequence, politicians need to be present on social media as well.
Journalists remain one of the primary audiences of politicians and political parties. Key Brussels journalists act as opinion-multipliers, disseminating the views of politicians to the wider world: it is the Twitter accounts of these journalists and their stories in online publications, on blogs and in tomorrow's printed newspapers that the target audiences both in Brussels and in the Member States read. To reach a specialised decision-maker, a political journalist needs access to the same type of information that the decision-maker would expect to read in tomorrow's papers.
In the summer of 2011, when the present author went to work in Finland, there were very few Finnish politicians on Twitter. Journalists also preferred to source their articles via personal contacts or on Facebook. However, a major change happened in 2012 when most political journalists joined Twitter and media houses encouraged them to do so. Not surprisingly, politicians followed.
Relationships have changed too. Previously, one needed to nurture a special relationship with a journalist before one could expect to exchange confidences via text messaging or in private meetings. It took time. Online, and especially on Twitter, relationships can be formed quickly–-provided that one has something eye-catching to say. The magnificent advantage of Twitter is that relationships can also be formed with people one would never have dreamed of approaching in real life.
Challenge: direct communication with citizens on social media
On Twitter, today's communication between decision-makers is direct: in our case between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), Commissioners and Ministers. Many officials, lobbyists, activists and interested citizens participate in discussions as well. Some even use Twitter as their main source of information. Exchanges that previously took place in private over a cup of coffee or a pint of beer are now conducted openly on Twitter. The most vivid political discussions are held by pundits in sharp tweets consisting of snappy sentences. The constant play of argument and counter-argument is amusing and informative to follow. Sometimes communications teams craft these messages, but most often the voice of a decision-maker himself is clearly discernible–-as it should be. This directness makes the world of Twitter unique at this moment in time. But this might not last: the Twitter of tomorrow could become congested if large numbers of citizens were to join in and engage in discussion. It may become difficult for the elite to maintain their highly charged debate.
The downside of Twitter is that only a small number of citizens participate in the discussions. Bridging the digital divide has become a real issue in a context where people who are poor or elderly or who live in rural areas have the weakest cards–-despite the fact that people over 50 are the fastest-growing user group of social media (Rubin 2010). Even prior to the heyday of social media, Hindman (2008) showed that in the world of digital democracy–-which at that time meant blogs in the US–-the messages were crafted and disseminated by a small political elite.
Since then social media have developed with astonishing speed. In 2009, two-thirds of MEPs still did not know what Twitter was, and nor did they plan to use it (Fleishman-Hillard 2009). By the summer of 2011, a large number of European politicians were active on Twitter, following the example of the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy (@EUHvR), who is known for his occasional digital haikus. In May 2012, 70% of MEPs were using Facebook for professional purposes, and more than one-third were regularly using Twitter (Digital Pulse 2012). One can only assume that the number of Twitter-using MEPs has drastically increased since then. In the Digital Pulse 2012 video interview on the use of digital media in Brussels, Andrew Hawkings of ComRes points out that ‘social media are here to stay, and Twitter is very important for the Brussels bubble (journalists, NGOs, lobbies).’
Furthermore, Hawkings recognises that, in contrast to the situation in London, single-issue campaign groups composed of individual citizens have not yet landed in Brussels. One such campaign–-albeit perhaps not very exemplary–-was seen in March 2013, when thousands of citizens, instigated by the Pirate Party, sent furious emails to MEPs protesting against the threat of banning pornography, which caused a blockage of the EP's email system for a short while. It turned out that the paragraph in question, which was ultimately deleted from the report, had been misinterpreted and did not pose the threat that the Pirates had perceived (Keating 2013).
In working with politicians, the present author has observed that they listen quite carefully to what citizens say on social media. However, when taking action, they must do so with caution and reflection. Hawkings raises an interesting example in his interview (Digital Pulse 2012): if politicians were to act upon the directives emerging from all online discussions, the reintroduction of the death penalty might not be far off.
The development of digital democracy poses a challenge to political organisations as well. In the new communication models favoured by most organisations, almost every employee becomes a player and a communicator. It is more difficult to shape a unified message unless the underlying values and goals are clear for everybody in the organisation. In a different field, American entrepreneur Shivan S. Subramaniam (Bryant 2010) has developed an easy rule for his employees to follow: as long as they focus on the three goals of the company (profitability, retaining existing clients and attracting new clients), they can operate with considerable freedom, without the need for management involvement. The situation in politics is, of course, different. Here, ideas are in competition. Nonetheless, it might help organisations struggling with the online empowerment of employees to find similar building blocks to support them in their daily work. As an example, one could imagine a situation in which many online advocators of democracy–-for instance, civil servants–-would find a similar form of support through the articulation of goals such as helping to solve problems, promoting a can-do attitude and advocating the common good.
Wikipedia is another formidable tool of citizen-inspired digital democracy that is currently shaping reality. Ninety-three percent of Brussels policymakers have indicated that they use it for professional purposes (Digital Pulse 2012). The strength and weakness of Wikipedia is that entries can be modified by almost anybody. And it is exactly here that the risk lies: despite carefully documented policies and guidelines (Wikipedia 2013), who is to guarantee that entries are not modified for political reasons? Active Wikipedians (those who edit the articles) are there to ensure impartiality, but even they might be biased. Entries by political organisations or lobbies, for example, are not allowed as such, but information in articles is frequently based on public documents such as press articles, which can themselves be biased. Furthermore, in extreme cases, the lack of interest in, or dislike of, certain topics may delay, skew or even prevent the publishing of articles related to them. Therefore, politicians and political organisations should pay careful attention to what is written about them on Wikipedia and how they interact with the community of Wikipedians who are the guardians of this information source.
Can parties and politicians keep up?
Parties and politicians are working hard to keep from falling behind. The digital media and their sphere have become the ‘new normal’, where citizens ‘have zero tolerance for digital failure'–-as Hinssen (2010), a specialist on the impact of technology on our society, puts the matter. Twitter has become the major source for news and commentary; blogs serve to give out background information; and journalists use Facebook and Wikipedia to source their articles. This puts a heavy burden on politicians and political organisations–-all those who need to be able to respond, discuss and be proactive online on an almost permanent basis.
Vesnic-Alujevic (2013, 34) recommends that, to stay on top of the game, the political groups of the EP reinforce their infrastructure. An ongoing effort is taking place, as the following example of the European People's Party (EPP) Group shows. For individual politicians, it is their online personality that counts. Importantly, this online personality should reflect the individual's real-life personality–-as does that of Minister Alexander Stubb (see below). Fakes do not succeed and are quickly overlooked by citizens.
The example of the EPP Group online
In 2009 the largest political group in the EP, the centre-right EPP Group, was the only large political group that was not involved in social media in the run-up to the EP elections. After the elections a conscious decision was made to increase the Group's presence on social media. A social media coordinator was hired and a social media plan developed. The Group first started with corporate Facebook and Twitter accounts, followed by social media training sessions offered to MEPs to support their engagement in social media. Flickr and YouTube were also introduced to share photos and videos. Furthermore, individual staff members’ participation in social media discussions was encouraged.
With these changes, but also by advocating a change of culture and incorporating social media into the media mix of the Group's communications, the EPP Group has become the number-one political group in social media activity, with currently 23,000 Facebook ‘likers’ and 10,600 Twitter followers. More than 200 of the 270 EPP Group MEPs are now on Facebook, and about half are on Twitter. Furthermore, the Group's website integrates social media and fosters increasing trust in the Group's message by linking to relevant third-party sources–-such as online newspaper articles–-that echo the message. Lastly, the website places the users in a central position by allowing them to choose both their preferred method of communication and the topics they like to hear about, practices which increase its relevance to the user.
Alexander Stubb: the Finnish Minister for European Affairs and Foreign Trade
How is a politician to manage his online presence successfully? Alexander Stubb, the Finnish Minister for European Affairs and Foreign Affairs, is known for his active online presence, for which he uses four social media channels: Twitter, Facebook, his blog and Storify. The following offers a short explanation of how he uses each:
Twitter (@AlexStubb). Minister Stubb has more than 69,000 followers and keeps the number of people he is following at approximately 1,000 to maintain the readability of his timeline. He always writes the tweets himself and over 95% of his tweets are in English. He tweets about his work, his political opinions and articles he has read, but also about his hobbies, sporting activity and reading preferences. He tweets several times a day and engages in selected discussions. Finnish and EU media follow his tweets closely.
Facebook page (www.facebook.com/alexanderstubb). Minister Stubb has more than 10,000 ‘likers’. Updates are mostly in Finnish, but sometimes in Swedish (Finland's second official language and his mother tongue). The page is managed by the Minister himself and his cabinet, but people are generally very quick to spot whether or not the language is ‘authentic Alex’; posts written by him often get several hundred ‘likes’, whereas posts written by the team get 20–50 likes. The updates are made approximately once a day and generally concern his daily work or sporting activities, although articles, photos and videos are also shared.
Blog (www.alexstubb.com). Minister Stubb writes a blog entry one to three times a week in Finnish on matters relating to his ministerial work or on other political topics. The blog is perceived as a useful tool for delivering longer explanations of more complex topics that might not be explainable in 140 characters. On occasion Minister Stubb also asks for advice and comments from his active followers. However, commenting on the blog has lost some of its attractiveness compared to the immediacy of Twitter. Finnish media follow the blog closely and quote from it often.
Storify (http://storify.com/Ulkoministerio). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses Storify to put together ‘digital travel diaries’ of the Minister's trips for the promotion of foreign trade. Storify has proven to be a handy tool for gathering in one place diverse material from different sources (e.g. tweets, photos, videos, press releases and news articles).
Conclusions
The digital world and especially social media form an integral part of democracy today. Politicians and political organisations that are actively involved in digital democracy gain the trust of citizens if they are approachable and open to discussion and if their online presence reflects their real-life existence. However, the immediacy of Twitter necessitates a continual presence and constant monitoring. Caution and reflection are also required with regard to both what is posted and the question of how to maintain a unified message when there are multiple players.
Digital democracy does not make a politician's life easier, nor does it necessarily reinforce the political structures in place. However, it establishes direct contact between citizens and their representatives, which has value in itself.
Reflection on the reasons for resorting to digital democracy reveals that, in the context of the EU, digital media are widely used to allow politicians and government officials to get closer to citizens. Moreover, these media help citizens share ideas and organise themselves for political action. For politicians and organisations, digital media offer a cost-efficient way to disseminate their message. However, they are still not widely used, either for the crowdsourcing of ideas or as a means of empowering citizens to become real digital decisionmakers. The course of future developments is clear, and it is only a question of time before we see more digital direct democracy in Europe.
Footnotes