Abstract
After the initial wave of optimism about the role of the Internet in societal and social changes, many scholars are gradually becoming less positive in their appraisals. Popular discussion, however, is still firmly optimistic and gives a great deal of attention to this issue. Some even consider social media a deus ex machina that will resolve the majority of contemporary societal problems. This paper reconsiders the role of the Internet in citizens’ lives, with a special focus on young people and their use of the Internet in political communication.
Introduction
Web 2.0 represents a new era in the development of the Internet, with its major characteristic being interaction. Its appearance led to the creation of the term ‘social media’, or ‘social network sites’, which refers to websites integrating technology and social interaction. The user-generated content that resulted from this innovation–-content that can be produced by every Internet user–-has led to the creation of a new media universe and the transformation of the Internet from a publishing medium to a communication medium. Access to instant online conversation has enabled new forms and languages: posts, ratings, comments, gestures and so on.
These new online options and broadened field of political communication underlie our interest in the use of social media by young adults. The Internet and social media are an effective place to engage young people and make politics more acceptable and interesting for them. Many scholars, journalists and politicians think social media have had a decisive role in protests and movements and refer to what are called ‘social-media revolutions’: the ‘Twitter revolution’, the ‘Facebook revolution’ and so on. Others, led by Morozov (2011), who call themselves ‘cyber-realists’, are not as optimistic and see the Internet's role in political and social life as minor.
This has resulted in tensions among stakeholders in the field: between scholars, journalists and politicians, as well as ordinary citizens. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion by exploring whether and how citizens between the ages of 18 and 35 are becoming and can become more engaged in social and political activities by way of social media. The goal is to help other stakeholders understand the ‘supply’ side in political communication processes.
Online participation
Politicians need to understand the behaviour of their audience, particularly their supporters, and how this behaviour is affected by technology. This is why this paper is examining politics from the voters’ perspective. With new communications technology appearing on the scene, audiences are becoming more active; more and more people are participating in discussions and expressing opinions. As a result, citizens are feeling more connected, helping to create the collective identities that are crucial in politics.
Today discussion and conversation among young people take place for the most part online. Social media became almost instantly popular for entertainment, but also for information. Young people read news portals, exchange emails, hold conversations with peers, create content and visit different websites. In the US, for example, 89% of people between 18 and 29 years of age use social media (Brenner 2013). According to a recent study (Vesnic-Alujevic and Maretic 2013) about 67% of young adults in the EU use the Internet as a primary source of information. Many scholars believe participation may be much higher. Despite its positive aspect–-more space for discussion with broader audiences–-the dominant concern is that communication over the Internet contributes to alienation among people and diminishes social capital (Putnam 2000).
The Internet is the form of media most used by young people and, since the traditional information gatekeepers disappear on the Internet, young adults can be encouraged to broaden their political participation and engagement. It follows that politicians should involve themselves in social media, provide content that is entertaining and, at the same time, engage young people with topics that the latter are interested in.
Online politics
In traditional politics, there is a great deal of evidence that young people have been disconnected from public life (Delli Carpini 2000; Vesnic-Alujevic 2011) because politicians have been indifferent about the topics and issues of concern to young people and because it has been perceived that youth participation has not influenced (to any significant degree) the outcome of elections. This could be changed by engaging young people in politics through online channels.
Soon after their appearance, social media started to be used in the political arena. Politicians and their advisers quickly realised that social media's interactive tools would allow users to participate in political debate and to engage and mobilise other users. Mobilisation is the most advanced level of participation on a website; its aim is to get citizens involved in political or social change through fundraising or becoming a party member or supporter. It has already been tested in certain campaigns, above all in Obama's 2008 election victory.
However, almost 10 years after the initial application of social media in the sphere of politics there are still big differences in their usage among the different states and regions of the world, even if we disregard their different degrees of Internet penetration. It is clear that social media offer the possibility of attracting potential voters, decreasing the level of political apathy and increasing the level of political participation, but it is arguable how much politicians use them and the degree to which citizens are interested in getting involved. With politicians, this is the case because they think it is enough to create a profile and because they don't have time for a detailed engagement with social media; with citizens it is because they are not interested or think they cannot effect significant change.
Besides the interaction granted by existing websites, social media allow people to connect with each other, with friends and strangers, and consequently either join established networks or build their own. This should contribute to broader democratic engagement. Increased political participation, in which a big part of the population interacts with elected representatives, could lead to an empowered citizenry, getting closer to the ideal of active citizenship in which citizens play a role in governmental decisions (Gane and Beer 2008). It could also create the more democratic societies we lack today. It is often said that the early 1990s were marked by a crisis of democracy based on the lack of legitimacy of democratic political institutions, a democratic deficit that we have not yet resolved.
Online tools can be very useful in an electoral campaign as a means of constant communication with the electorate, especially the demographically younger part of it. One of the major advantages for politicians who use social media is the opportunity they give them to link entertainment with politics and to appeal to citizens who are more interested in the former, thereby establishing stronger affective ties between citizens and political actors. Social media, therefore, offer features that are not available in traditional advertising, as well as a range of inexpensive advertising tools that include interaction, involvement and mobilisation.
Although I agree with the thesis of'normalisation’, 1 proven to be present on the political scene by several studies (for instance, Koc Mihalska and Lilleker 2013), the potential to see reactions and receive instant comments from the audience can provide a significant advantage for a political candidate in any electoral race. The informal interaction between a political actor and his audience can help the politician to create a campaign and a programme that is more suitable to his electorate, giving him an advantage over his opponent. At the same time, the Internet allows citizens to frankly communicate their thoughts and opinions. In order to achieve previously defined goals, political actors should further motivate citizens to participate in their online campaigns.
Since the beginning of the use of the Internet in politics, scholars have been divided between the ‘normalisation’ and ‘equalisation’ theses. The ‘normalisation’ thesis, initially linked to Internet sceptics, but increasingly proven to be the reality, means that the Internet does not bring anything new to the balance of political power between contestants. The ‘equalisation’ thesis, by which the Internet would allow smaller and fringe parties to obtain more power on the political scene, has been mainly linked to cyber optimists, especially at the beginning of Internet use, when it was seen as a major possible advantage of the Internet compared to ‘offline’ campaigning.
The Internet offers ‘nearly unlimited choices and minimal constraints about where to go and what to do’ (Norris 2006, 33). I share Livingstone's (2007) opinion that the structure of social media, its interactive and informal communication through dialogue, its flexibility, and its novel possibilities make young adults feel that the Internet provides an informal arena in which they can freely present ideas and even anti-authoritarian approaches and can feel empowered. Based on this, it can be assumed that the Internet could be used to increase youth political participation in elections through the stimulation of their political interest.
The 2008 US election is considered the first successful example of the strategic use of social media in political communication. It relied on different tools for informing citizens, communicating with them, engaging them and letting them participate, both through Internet channels and offline. This was done in a way that attracted not only supporters, but also undecided and uninvolved voters. We should be aware, however, that the US’ success has not been repeated anywhere else in the world, although many have tried to copy it. We need to understand whether the success was really based on the use of social media or whether social media only provided help to an already well-structured campaign.
There has been a lot written about electoral campaigns online in different parts of the world (mostly in democratic countries), but researchers are still trying to grasp how audiences react to this approach. As part of this effort, scholars have conducted a number of experiments, undertaken ethnographic research, and created new tools and methods. Not many changes have been observed in online campaigns, however, since 2008.
Social media in social movements
Other recent examples of the use of social media in political and social activism are worth mentioning. The mobilising potential of social media became evident several years ago in different countries under different regimes and contexts. Alfaro (2009) states that the evolution of social movements is connected to that of cyberspace. Web 2.0 has offered more coordinated actions and more media visibility and has boosted the power of social movements (Michalis 2012).
First of all, I will review the use of social media in social movements in non-democratic countries during the Arab Spring (Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Iran), before analysing their use in social protests (Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, Gezi Park and Brazil) in several democratic countries around the world. What is common in all these cases is that they demonstrate how social media are changing the role of social activism while responding to the protests and public participation of citizens.
In non-democratic states
The use of social media in recent movements and protests has often been framed as decisive, but based on several recent books published by Morozov (2011) and the very low level of Internet penetration (around 20% of citizens in the affected countries use the Internet), I question the validity of that assumption.
Many scholars argue that communication via the Internet during the Arab Spring was used more for framing the protest than for organising it. According to one activist they used Facebook to schedule the protest and Twitter and YouTube to tell the world (Howard 2011). In Iran, for instance, where Twitter was used as a means of communication and organisation more than simply for framing, it was not particularly successful, according to some, including Morozov (2011). On the other hand, in Egypt the protestors used Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, but did not rely only on social media. They also met people physically, going from home to home, and spreading the word to friends, relatives and others who were not connected to the Internet.
Therefore, it can be said that these protests and revolutions were made possible partly as a result of the new technologies. Besides organising and framing the protests, social media helped reduce the burden of resources needed to organise them. In every revolution there is a need for financial resources as well as for people willing to take part and stay informed, and the Internet helped with both issues.
However, the engine of the protest remains agency–-although technological determinism allows us to ignore this more important factor–-and for a protest, physical presence is always more important than its virtual counterpart. According to Deglise (2011), even Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg stated in May 2011: ‘It would be particularly arrogant for a technology company to claim to have a role in the protest movements… Facebook was neither necessary, nor sufficient [for these protests]’. But, it is also true that the organisers of the protests, mostly young educated people who use the Internet daily, took advantage of it for spreading ideas and information.
In democratic states
Very similar movements, although with different goals, have also appeared in some established democracies. The common triggers for these protests (Indignados and Occupy Wall Street, which started in 2011; and Gezi Park and Brazil, which started in 2013) were socio-political and economic crises. Protestors all used social media for the intensive mobilisation of participants, as well as using personal contacts (Anduiza et al. 2012; Kanalley 2011). The participants were, as in the social protests during the Arab Spring, the younger, more educated segment of the population, with restricted resources and experience. It should be taken into account, however, that Internet penetration in these countries is quite high, especially in the US, where the proportion of Internet users is 85% according to Pew (Brenner 2013). In the protest at Gezi Park, social media were extensively used. In fact, they were a central communication tool as well as the only way to openly express dissent; all other media were controlled by the government.
Based on these protests, some scholars (for instance, Bennett and Segerberg 2012) argue that the concept of collective action, which is characterised by strong leadership, fund-raising and organisation, should be now replaced by connective action, in which the communication through social as well as personal networks plays a key role, while the leadership and organisation are not as strong and/or visible.
Conclusion
The social media possess the interactive and participatory tools to increase political participation among citizens and are effective for organisation, building trust, and accessing and sending information (Michalis 2012).
The discussion and deliberation facilitated by these websites is considered key to developing a sense of active citizenship among young adults, who have for some time been divorced from politics by a sense of political impotence. There have been many attempts to involve and consequently empower young people through social media, perceived as the major space for their information and discussion. In addition to aiding communication between citizens and politicians, social media have proved to be a good tool for protests. In many cases it can be said that these social movements should not be seen as protests that make use of digital technology but as protests that would not happen without it.
The interaction created among citizens and between citizens and politicians by social media, and the construction of networks, has had an effect on political and social activism, making citizens feel more connected than they do through media such as television or newspapers. Whether this will help to overcome the democratic malaise among citizens, especially young people–-a process that cannot happen overnight–-remains to be seen.
Footnotes