The Use of Social Media on Political Participation Among University Students: An Analysis of Survey Results From Rural Pakistan

Abstract

Over the last decade, extensive literature has been published regarding social media effects on real-life political participation. Many argue that social media stimulates online and offline political participation. This study investigates how online political activities impact political efficacy and real-life political participation among university students in rural Pakistan. In addition, this study also sheds light on the relationship between political activities and political awareness. We conducted an online survey of (N = 200) male and female undergraduate and graduate students from the University of Narowal, Pakistan. We used Qualtrics software to distribute our survey among students for data-collection purposes. The results reveal that the majority of the students use social media for political awareness and information. Political efficacy is significantly based on online political participation. In addition to that, social media is a vital platform for netizens to participate in real-life political activities. In conclusion, the findings of the study suggest that online political activities strongly correlate to political awareness and offline political participation. In rural areas of Pakistan, the younger generations are very active on social media to participate in online and offline political happenings.

Keywords

social media political efficacy real-life participation political participation Pakistan survey

Introduction

More than a decade ago, information and communication technologies dramatically changed the world. For instance, new media and technology have changed the interpersonal interaction, communication patterns, and social and political discussions. Media and communication scholars, political scientists, sociologists, and international relations scholars have conducted hundreds of studies on various aspects of social media usage (Golan, Arceneaux, & Soule, 2019). The Internet is playing a significant role in providing information to the public on political events, engaging its users and encouraging them to get involved in offline political activities. The Internet has become vital for political discussions and political participation. In the beginning, Internet was used as a one-way communication tool for political parties to inform the public through their websites. However, new media and technology have changed communication patterns in two-way communication (Emruli & Bača, 2011). Millennials are the most active users of the Internet and social media. Online activities related to politics are useful and encourage youth to participate in political events (Quintelier & Vissers, 2008). Internet use, political knowledge, and political participation are associated with one another. This trend is playing a key role in elections, especially in developing countries like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Internet and social media have become increasingly important for disseminating political information (McAllister, 2015). Conversely, it also poses threats to democracies, as was seen in the 2016 United States presidential elections and some of the European countries. Social media is one of the biggest sources of information for billions of its users; however, it also has huge potential for disinformation to manipulate public opinion. The above-mentioned effects of social media on political activism are important in gauging political dynamics. The Internet encourages its users toward politics and strengthens offline political participation which shows the dual effect of Internet on information and participation toward politics (Nam, 2012).

The use of social media among millennials is not only popular in the developed world but also in developing countries. In Pakistan, political parties and individual politicians have very active social media accounts to disseminate information for social media users and voters (Michaelsen, 2011). New technology and social media have an impact on political communication in both developed and developing countries, although developed countries experience larger impact because of proliferation of the Internet (Riaz, 2010). Social networking sites (SNS) have significant influence on the social and political learning of netizens, especially youth (Khan & Shahbaz, 2015). A recent study revealed that SNS have powerful political impact on individuals in Pakistan (Karamat & Farooq, 2016). Students actively use new media for political information such as sharing opinions and discussing issues around politics with fellow community members (Arshad & Hassan, 2014).

In Pakistan, Facebook is the most used network among youth for political information compared with other social networks such as Twitter. According to the recent study, Pakistan has the second highest population of youth in the world after Yemen which has created huge impact on the dynamics of Pakistan’s politics (Ittefaq & Iqbal, 2018). Since 2008, Pakistan’s political parties are actively using social media and it has changed the dynamics of politics in Pakistan (Eijaz, 2013). The majority of survey respondents participated in politics via social media, especially Facebook. The Internet penetration is very low in Pakistan compared with the other Asian countries, but the users are increasing with the passage of time. According to the latest statistics, only 19% people has Internet access in Pakistan; however, substantial use of social and new media in different sectors including politics, health, and education is encouraging researchers to analyze the usage of social and new media (Ittefaq & Iqbal, 2018). It provides an opportunity to discuss different multifaceted issues facing Pakistani society and encouraged them to participate in national elections, for better turnout in electoral process (Ahmad & Sheikh, 2013). Political participation by university students on Facebook influenced their offline activism and is linked that how much time they spend and engage in politics online. The study shows that political activities of the Punjab University students and their perception about politics have changed through this platform (Zaheer, 2016). This study was conducted in Lahore which is a metropolitan city of Pakistan and has one of the largest universities in Pakistan.

Finding a gap in literature and especially marginalized and rural area of Pakistan, this study sheds a light on the effects that social media has on political participation and how university students participate in online and offline political activities and what is the theme of discussion on social media networking sites. In addition, the study examines the effects of online political activities of the participants and their real-life participation in politics. The relationship of this efficacy and participation toward politics has also been investigated. Previous studies have investigated the role of social and new media in bigger cities and other sectors of society like education, health, and politics as well, but marginalized areas are ignored by most of the researchers. But our study focuses on rural area of Pakistan to examine their social media use in political spectrum.

Literature Review

New Media and Political Efficacy

The Internet and social media provide an opportunity to the young population for political discussion through various online groups, pages, and accounts. Bimber and Copeland (2011) emphasized on the role of new media for providing the platform for political participation and changing their political efficacy. Schulz’s (2005) study suggested that new media users are active in politics and political discourse. The Internet has developed the interests toward politics of its users and improved political efficacy of the respondent which create their online and offline political engagements. Jiang (2016) examined the effects of the Internet on online and offline political participation. He also investigated the Internet’s role in molding citizens’ perceptions of politics. This strong relationship creates political efficacy and election interest among Internet users and increases their political involvement (Jiang, 2016). The use of the Internet has become the main source of political efficacy and political participation, enhancing awareness about voting and campaigning. New media also increases the ratio of voters’ turnout among users. It develops the approach which helps in voting and donating campaign for politics (Larson, 2004). Users’ efficacy helps them to understand the political affairs in a better way through the acquisition of political information from new media. Kahne, Middaugh, and Allen (2014) investigated the youth, new media, and the rise of participatory politics and concluded that new media has given a platform to individuals for information and communication with large audiences and a means to participate in political activities. The above-mentioned studies have been conducted in developed countries and shared the similar findings. However, marginalized and rural areas youth have been excluded and neglected in the research domain. Our study focuses on rural active youth in political process through social media.

New Media and Political Participation

It is fair claim that social media has its disadvantages too. For instance, Calder’s (2013) study argued that “it is necessary to know the disadvantages of new media for political communication and we have to save political participation from this situation rather than to accept it” (p. 66). Mahmud and Amin (2017) focused on the usage of online media in political activities among university students. The findings of the study show the relationship of online and offline political participation; however, compared with Facebook, email plays a small role in political discussion. Similarly, Schmiemann (2015) examined SNS and political participation and concluded that Facebook content shows a positive response regarding political participation. Gibson and McAllister (2012) evaluated online social ties and political engagement and examined how online platforms increase political interaction. In addition, online interaction is enhancing similar bonds among unrelated bridging networks; they found that online social contact fosters offline participation. Following the trend in this research domain, Papagiannidis and Manika (2016) investigated political participation and engagement via different online and offline channels and found that new media and other online channels allow political participants to get involved in politics and express their opinion openly. Individual attitudes vary as do their digital media use and real-life political participation.

The use of Internet and all other e-activities improves the knowledge of online users about politics and spurs political engagement and participation. Cantijoch and his colleagues studied the use of Internet, political engagement, and the impact of e-discussion, e-information, and e-political campaigning. Their findings claimed that e-campaigning directly connects and engages Internet users before and after elections (Cantijoch, Cutts, & Gibson, 2012). Marco, Robles, and Antino (2017) also observed this political attitudes and engagement in the case of individuals on digital platforms in Spain. Study findings show significance difference between cognitive and effective components of attitude. Rainie, Smith, Schlozman, Brady, and Verba (2012) investigated social media and political engagement and found that 39% of adults in the United States used social media and one out of every eight adults used social media for civic and political purposes.

Social media generated new trends for political participation and changed the patterns of political communication. Siluveru (2015) endeavored to dig out the facts about social and digital media in political communication and concluded that social media is being used for the purpose of social relations and updating the users about happenings. Stieglitz, Brockmann, and Xuan (2012) analyzed the usage of social media for political communication and found a strong relationship among politicians and social media users. In addition to that, due to SNS, interaction between voters and politicians has improved significantly. Biswas, Ingle, and Roy (2014) examined the influence of social media in India, on voting behavior, their results show that social media unites people within political parties. Storck (2011) revealed that activists used social media for collective action. Hellweg (2011) examined politicians’ social media use to influence constituent perceptions and found that voters responded more positively to politicians’ personal content rather than to their professional content. Similarly, Kalsnes (2016) discussed Facebook as a unique platform for interaction between political parties and voters; the study provides best practices to link with voters for political engagement. Raoof, Zaman, Ahmad, and Al-Qaraghuli (2013) studied social network systems as a tool for political change. Their findings clearly showed that social media was widely used as a communication network among candidates and voters. By providing information about politics, social media invites participation and mobilization and plays a vital role in political education as well as the mobilization of the public in politics (Doris, 2014).

According to the latest statistics, Pakistan has 44.61 million Internet users. Among these Internet users, 37 million are considered as active users of social media. Among them, 36 million use Facebook, 6.30 million use Instagram, 1.26 million use Twitter, 2.15 million use Snapchat, and 5.10 million use LinkedIn. Moreover, 41% users are between 18 and 24 years and 36% people are between 25 and 34-years-old. These statistics indicate that the majority of social media and Internet users are young people in Pakistan (We Are Social, 2019). Another digital marketing company published latest report named Digital Statistical Indicators 2018 and claims that 44.6 million out of 198.9 million are Internet users, which is 22% of the total population. Out of them, only 35 million are active users of social media, which is 18% of the total population. Mobile users are 109.5 million out of the total population, and among them, 32 million are active Internet and social media users from their mobile devices, which is just 16% of the total population. The majority of social media users are the young people both in rural and urban areas.

Facebook and Political Efficacy

Write a topic sentence here. Build a concept of a story. Social media, especially Facebook, plays an important role in political efficacy. Abdulrauf (2016) examined cognitive engagement and online political participation on Facebook and Twitter among youth in Nigeria and Malaysia and concluded that political knowledge and needs increased the political involvement and trust in young people. Abdu and his colleagues measured the role of Facebook and its use, interactivity, quality information, and political interest among youth. The study concluded that “Facebook use, and political interest positively correlates with online political participation” (Abdu, Mohamad, & Muda, 2017, p. 1). Conroye and his colleagues found that online political groups are mutually connected with offline political participation; however, the relationship between online political groups and political knowledge is limited because of online group discourse, but the connection between online and offline participation is very strong (Conroye, Feezellb, & Guerreroc, 2012). Heiss and Matthes (2016) studied the effects of politicians’ participatory Facebook posts on young people’s political efficacy and revealed significant positive effects on those with high external and collective efficacy traits and low cynicism traits. Chan and Guo (2013) investigated Facebook use in political activities and concluded that “social media use among youth can facilitate greater political and civic engagement, particularly for those who perceive that they have limited ability to participate and understand political affairs” (p. 461).

Facebook and Political Participation

Considerable research over the decade has been produced on the impact of social media and Internet on online and offline political participation. For instance, Facebook has become one of the most significant platforms for online users to discuss politics and participate in politics offline. Njegomir (2016) examined the impact of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube on millennials’ political behavior and found that Twitter and YouTube were not used for political purposes; however, Facebook was used for political content and may have a negative effect on formal political participation in both developing and developed countries. Westling (2007) examined the expansion of the public sphere and the impact of Facebook on political communication. He interlinked the political communication strategies with public sphere expansion and found that Facebook was a valid platform for bridging political communication among public. Another study conducted by Marcheva (2008) found that there was a strong correlation between social media platforms and collective movements. Facebook helped in understanding the various impressions of political participation such as discussions of controversial issues.

Researchers have developed multiple scales to study the impact of Internet on campaign and political messages. Due to the monolithic nature of the medium, it is difficult to assess the effects of social media on netizens. Political participation on Facebook is robust during elections. Rustad and Sæbø (2013) found that politicians use Facebook to connect with citizens and keep them updated about their agenda and political activities. Borah (2014) presented his paper at the annual conference in International Communication Association on the use of Facebook amid the presidential campaign and found that posts promoting the candidate increased political participation in individuals whose party affiliation is congruent with the post (p. 1). Similar to that, Vitak et al. (2009) observed the usage of Facebook and political involvement in the 2008 election. They concluded that there are possible effects to change the usage of SNS among applicants and political organizations. Hanson, Haridakis, Cunningham, Sharma, and Ponder (2010) revealed that social media usage shows negative predictions for political cynicism. Andersen and Medaglia (2009) found that the online sphere is popular among voters because they know about their political candidates through various means of party organization. Gerodimos and Justinussen (2014) found that Obama’s campaign in 2012 utilized Facebook as a tool for promotion; this online campaign highlighted Obama’s personality as a strategy which motivated followers to acts rather than to become empowered. Stumpel (2010) has given insight in his thesis on politics of social media (Facebook) and argues that discursive processes and counter protocological implementations should be an essential political factor which governs user activities on SNS. Based on the extensive amount of literature which has been devoted to social media and political communication, we can argue that published literature shows the opportunities and challenges of social media in politics in various countries across the globe. Based on the presented literature, the following hypotheses are derived to address in this study:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Online political activities have a significant relationship with political efficacy.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Online political activities have a significant relationship with real-life participation.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Political participation and political efficacy have a significant relationship with each other.

Method

In this study, the population includes students of University of Narowal, Pakistan. We selected a sample of (N = 200) respondents including (N = 100) BS students (Hons) and (N = 100) pursuing master’s degrees (male and female for both groups). The quantitative survey method has been utilized along with its data-collection techniques to get better results. For the collection of information from the selected sample of study respondents, we used Qualtrics software to distribute our survey among students in University of Narowal. In this study, the questionnaire is constructed with analytical, close-ended questions along with the 5-point Likert-type scale (summated rating scale), consisting of multiple options, that is, 1 = Always, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Never. Respondents chose one option to answer each question. In this study, both independent and dependent variables were taken from previous published studies, operationalized and modified. Online activities were used as the independent variable, and political efficacy and real participation were the dependent variable. We used the Zaheer (2016) scale regarding the measurement of items such as political participation, political efficacy, use of social media, and online and offline political activities.

The concepts of the study show that online media provides support to the dependent variable’s political efficacy, real participation, and online activities. Political efficacy reveals respondents’ political beliefs, political ideologies, and their feelings about the political system. Several researchers used political efficacy as a variable to examine youth’s pre-existing understandings about politics and their real-life political participation. Real-life participation includes political activities such as active political campaigning, attendance in rallies and protests, and take part in the voting process during elections. Online activities include sharing posts, liking pictures, and commenting on videos on different digital platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. We studied the correlation between online political activities and real-life participation among young university students in a rural area of Pakistan.

In the beginning, data collection was difficult due to lack of understanding of online surveys in Pakistan; especially in rural areas. At that time, English was the language used in surveys. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (n.d.) World Factbook, Pakistan uses English and Lingua Franca to communicate in offices and schools, and government officials primarily use English as their means of communication. Second, University of Narowal offers all courses in English and English language is the central medium of instruction. After personally visiting several departments, in person, response rate was significantly improved. We used our personal contacts, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Emails to distribute the link of our survey. We distributed our survey to all departments and schools in University of Narowal, Pakistan. After the data-collection phase, we ran several descriptive statistic results to find the inconsistencies and errors. We used Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software to analyze the data and regression analysis, correlations, and descriptive statistics to test the proposed hypothesis.

We used probability sampling and selected simple-random sampling technique in this study. Wimmer and Dominick (2011) noted that probability sampling uses mathematical calculations and random sampling uses the element, subject, and the unit of population. Consequently, students of bachelor’s and master’s degrees are selected in random sampling and considered as youth. The method was a quantitative survey study design. Wimmer and Dominick (2011) discussed that quantitative research method has been performed through using different survey methods. Similarly, Williams (2003) said that “survey research is based upon the well-established statistical sampling principles of sampling” (p. 23). Survey method is very popular in media and communication studies.

Findings

In pursuance to analyze the H1 of this study, that is, online political activities have a significant relationship with political efficacy, Table 1 depicts political efficacy (PE) with an R value .286, R² value .082, adjusted R² .077, and SE of the estimate .43914. The scale of political efficacy has been developed from Niemi, Craig, and Franco (1991). In this 7-item scale (α = .756), questions have been asked of respondents. A Likert-type scale has been applied with the response options of 1 = Always, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Never. Hence, the study findings support H1, that there is a significant relationship between online political activities and political efficacy.

Table 1.

Relationship of Online Political Activities With Political Efficacy (N = 200).

Model	R	R ²	Adjusted R²	SE of the estimate
1 (PE)	.286^a	.082	.077	.43914

Note. PE = political efficacy; OA = online activities; SE = standard error.

Predictors: (Constant), OA.

To test the H2 of this study, that is, online political activities have a significant relationship with real-life participation, the regression analysis square test was applied to data. Table 2 depicts real participation (RP) with an R value .366, R² value .084, adjusted R² .098, and SE of the estimate .51286. The scale for real-life political participation used in this study has been resulting by means of merging the scales of Verba and Nie (1972) and Cao (2008). To measure real-life political participation, a 7-item scale was adopted (α = .756). A Likert-type scale was applied with the response options of 1 = Always, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Never. Hence, the study findings support H2, that there is a significant relationship between online political activities and real-life participation.

Table 2.

Relationship of Online Political Activities With Real-Life Participation (N = 200).

Model	R	R ²	Adjusted R²	SE of the estimate
2 (RP)	.366^a	.084	.098	.51286

Note. RP = real participation; OA = online activities; SE = standard error.

Predictors: (Constant), OA.

In pursuance of H3 of this study, that is, political participation and political efficacy have a significant relationship with each other, the correlation test has been applied to the data. Table 3 shows that online political activities (OPA) correlate with political efficacy (PE) at .286 and significant at .000, and moreover, with real political participation (RPP) correlated at .066. This study hypothesis shows positive correlations between online and offline political participation as Schulz’s (2005) and Vitak et al.’s (2009) studies. Hence, the study findings support H3 because a significant relationship was found between political participation and political efficacy.

Table 3.

Relationship Between Political Participation and Political Efficacy.

	OA	PE	RP
OA Pearson’s correlation	1	.286**	.066
Significant (two-tailed)		.000	.355
N	200	200	200

Note. OA = online activities; PE = political efficacy; RP = real participation.

Relationship between two variables.

Table 4 depicts that OA correlate with PE at .286 and significant at .000, and moreover, with RP correlated at .066. On the contrary, PE is correlated with RP at .316. The overall correlation among these three variables is significant at .01.

Table 4.

Correlation of Online Activities With Political Efficacy and Real-Life Participation.

	OA	PE	RP
OA Pearson’s correlation	1	.286**	.066
Significant (two-tailed)		.000	.355
N	200	200	200
PE Pearson’s correlation	.286**	1	.316**
Significant (two-tailed)	.000		.000
N	200	200	200
RP Pearson’s correlation	.066	.316**	1
Significant (two-tailed)	.355	.000
N	200	200	200

Note. OA = online activities; PE = political efficacy; RP = real participation.

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Table 5.

Sample’s Descriptive Statistics.

	M	SD	N
OA	3.9029	.26707	200
PE	3.9714	.45717	200
RP	3.6929	.21278	200

Note. OA = online activities; PE = political efficacy; RP = real participation.

There were 50.5% undergraduate and 49.5% graduate students. However, percentage distribution regarding age shows that 41.0% were from 18 to 23 years old and 57.0% of the respondents were from 24 to 28 years old. Moreover, 51.0% were male and 49.0% were female. The results of the survey related to political efficacy showed that 51.0% respondents strongly agreed that they are well-qualified to participate in politics through online media. However, 41.5% respondents strongly agreed that sometimes politics and government activities seemed too complicated to them. Survey results also showed that in terms of real-life participation, 43.0% of respondents often discussed political activities with their family, colleagues, and others, while 19.0% respondents never attended political party meetings. Moreover, results of online political activities indicate that 37.5% of respondents visit online video channels (e.g., YouTube) to view official or unofficial videos about election issues, party leaders, or local candidates on a daily basis and 44.0% of respondents daily visit the Twitter accounts of parties, leaders, and local candidates.

Conclusion

The findings of the first variable political efficacy (PE) relationship through online media show that the majority of respondents strongly agree that they use online media and feel well-aware of political issues. Majority of the respondents said that they use SNS for political information and discussions. However, education results show that both undergraduate and graduate students are highly active on online media and are politically conscious, while age cross-tabulation indicates that students of age 24 to 28 years more actively use online media compared with students of age 18 to 23 years. Overall, the study findings suggest that online political activities have a significant influence on political efficacy. Results of the second variable real participation (RP) relationship through online media results show that respondents actively share political content online with their friends, family, and colleagues. They actively participate in real-life political activities. The majority of respondents had contact with members of the national assembly and members of the provincial assembly. In addition, the study’s third variable online activities (OA) results reveals that the majority of respondents visited political websites and also blogs of leaders, politicians, and local candidates.

Conclusively, the study has determined that online media has a significant influence on university students. It creates political efficacy among all the respondents. The selected sample of university students actively using online media is better informed about government happenings. The respondents said they discuss and share political content online and they actively take part in various real-life political activities. They use Facebook to communicate with politicians and local candidates. Online media has an important role in political efficacy and real participation. The study supports our hypotheses about how online political activities have a significant relationship with political efficacy, online political activities have a significant relationship with real-life political participation, and political efficacy largely depends on all the above.

The results of our study show that Pakistan’s rural youth, especially students, are very active on SNS to participate online and offline in protests and rallies. It could have been better to include a bigger sample from rural Pakistan. Our study only consists of one university and future scholar should include new universities such as the University of Okara and other rural campuses to shed a light on the use of social media among youth for political purposes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Muhammad Ittefaq

Author Biographies

Taufiq Ahmad is a lecturer at Center for Media and Communication Studies in University of Narowal, Pakistan. He started his career as a Sub-Editor in Pakistan Observer, and he worked with News Network International (NNI) as Monitoring Officer at International Desk. He has also been associated with Uks Research, Resource and Publication as a Research Executive. He joined academic career as a visiting lecturer at Center for Media and Communication Studies, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan. His research interests are political communication, framing theory, and analysis of political talk shows in broadcast media.

Aima Alvi is a MPhil scholar in Department of Mass Communication at Lahore College for Women University, Lahore, Pakistan.

Muhammad Ittefaq did his first master’s degree in Communication Studies at Institute of Communication Studies, University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. He earned his second master’s degree at the Institute of Media and Communication Science, Technical University Ilmenau, Germany. Currently, he is a PhD student at William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA. His research interests are social media, health communication, and new media technology.

References

Abdu

S. D.

Mohamad

Muda

(2017). Youth online political participation: The role of Facebook use, interactivity, quality information and political interest. SHS Web of Conferences, 33, 1-10.

Abdulrauf

A. A.

(2016). Cognitive engagement and online political participation on Facebook and Twitter among youths in Nigeria and Malaysia (Doctoral thesis). Universiti Utara Malaysia, Changlun.

Ahmad

Sheikh

K. S.

(2013). Social media and youth participatory politics: A study of university students. Journal of South Asian Studies, 28, 353-360.

Andersen

K. N.

Medaglia

(2009). The use of Facebook in national election campaigns: Politics as usual. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 101-111). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03781-8_10

Arshad

Hassan

S. A.

(2014). Role of new media in political discussion and changing voting behavior of university students. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 3(7), 4-9.

Bimber

Copeland

(2011, August 25). Digital media and political participation over time in the US: Contingency and ubiquity. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the European Consortium for Political Research, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Biswas

Ingle

Roy

(2014). Influence of social media on voting behavior. Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, 2, 127-155.

Borah

(2014). Political Facebook use in the 2012 presidential campaign: Political participation and congruency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association 64th Annual Conference, Seattle Sheraton Hotel, Seattle, WA.

Calder

(2013, October). Political participation in the social media moment: The emergence of personal politics (Master’s thesis). RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

10.

Cantijoch

Cutts

Gibson

(2012, July 10). Internet use and political engagement: The role of e-campaigning as a pathway to online political participation. The International Political Science Association, XXII World Congress, Madrid, Spain.

11.

Cao

M. A. X.

(2008). Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns: The moderating effects of age and education. Mass Communication & Society, 11(1), 43-61.

12.

Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

13.

Chan

Guo

(2013). The role of political efficacy on the relationship between Facebook use and participatory behaviors: A comparative study of young American and Chinese adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 460-463.

14.

Conroye

Feezellb

J. T.

Guerreroc

(2012). Facebook and political engagement: A study of online political group membership and offline political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1535-1546.

15.

Doris

(2014, February). An assessment of the role of social media in political education and mobalization (Master’s thesis). Benue State University, Makurdi, Nigeria.

16.

Eijaz

(2013). Impact of new media on dynamics of Pakistan politics. Journal of Political Studies, 20, 113-130.

17.

Emruli

Bača

(2011). Internet and political communication–Macedonian case. International Journal of Computer Science, 8, 154-163.

18.

Gerodimos

Justinussen

(2014). Obama’s 2012 Facebook campaign: Political communication in the age of the like button. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 113-132.

19.

Gibson

R. K.

McAllister

(2012). Online social ties and political engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, 21-34.

20.

Golan

G. J.

Arceneaux

P. C.

Soule

(2019). The Catholic Church as a public diplomacy actor: An analysis of the pope’s strategic narrative and international engagement. The Journal of International Communication, 25, 95-115.

21.

Hanson

Haridakis

P. M.

Cunningham

A. W.

Sharma

Ponder

J. D.

(2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 584-607.

22.

Heiss

Matthes

(2016). Mobilizing for some. The effects of politicians’ participatory Facebook posts on young. Journal of Media Psychology, 28, 123-135.

23.

Hellweg

(2011). Social media sites of politicians influence their perception by constituents. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 2, 22-36.

24.

Ittefaq

Iqbal

(2018). Digitization of the health sector in Pakistan: Challenges and opportunities to online health communication: A case study of MARHAM social and mobile media. Digital Health, 4.

25.

Jiang

(2016, March 21-23). The effects of the internet on online and offline political participation among citizens in Australia. Paper presented at the 66th Annual International Conference of British Political Science Association, Brighton, UK.

26.

Kahne

Middaugh

Allen

(2014). Youth, new media, and the rise of participatory politics. Youth and Participatory Politics Research Network, 1, 1-25.

27.

Kalsnes

(2016). The social media paradox explained: Comparing political parties’ Facebook strategy versus practice. Social Media + Society, 2, 1-11.

28.

Karamat

Farooq

(2016). Emerging role of social media in political activism: Perceptions and practices. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 31, 381-396.

29.

Khan

M. A.

Shahbaz

M. Y.

(2015). Role of social networking media in political socialization of youth of Multan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 35, 437-449.

30.

Larson

K. G.

(2004, April 16). The internet and political participation the effect of internet use on voter turnout. Retrieved from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555774/etd_kgl6.pdf

31.

Mahmud

Amin

(2017). Use of social networking media in political participation: A study on Dhaka university students. Sociology and Anthropology, 56, 481-488.

32.

Manika

D. P.

(2016). Political participation and engagement via different online and offline channels. International Journal of E-business Research, 12, 1-22.

33.

Marcheva

(2008). The real political power of the internet: Facebook, a possible new hub of European elections? Paris, France: Gallup Europe.

34.

Marco

S. D.

Robles

J. M.

Antino

(2017). Reasons to participate: The role of political attitudes in digital activism. International Review of Social Psychology, 30, 131-140.

35.

McAllister

(2015, 27-28 May). Internet use, political knowledge and political participation among young voters in Australia. The Conference Democracy: A Citizen Perspective, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland.

36.

Michaelsen

(2011). New media vs. old politics the internet, social media, and democratisation in Pakistan. Berlin, Germany: fesmedia Asia Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

37.

Nam

(2012). Dual effects of the internet on political activism: Reinforcing and mobilizing. T. Nam/Government Information Quarterly, 29, 590-597.

38.

Niemi

G. R.

Craig

C. S.

Franco

(1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413.

39.

Njegomir

N. M.

(2016, May). The impact of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on Millennial’s political behaviour (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.

40.

Papagiannidis

Manika

(2016). Political participation and engagement via different online and offline channels. International Journal of E-Business Research, 12(4), 1-22.

41.

Quintelier

Vissers

(2008). The effect of internet use on political participation: An analysis of survey results for 16-Year-olds in Belgium. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 411-427.

42.

Rainie

Smith

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

Verba

(2012). Social media and political engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet.

43.

Raoof

J. K.

Zaman

H. B.

Ahmad

Al-Qaraghuli

(2013). Using social network systems as a tool for political change. International Journal of Physical Science, 8, 1143-1148.

44.

Riaz

(2010). Effects of new media technologies on political communication. Journal of Political Studies, 1, 161-173.

45.

Rustad

Sæbø

. (2013). How, why and with whom do local politicians engage on Facebook. In International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 69-79). Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-40346-0_7

46.

Schmiemann

G. N.

(2015, June 4). Social network sites and political participation: Attributes of the European Union’s Facebook pages (BA Thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

47.

Schulz

(2005, September). Political efficacy and expected political participation among lower and upper secondary students. Paper prepared for the ECPR General Conference, Budapest, Hungary.

48.

Siluveru

(2015). Social and digital media in political communication. International Journal of Scientific Research, 4, 768-770.

49.

Stieglitz

Brockmann

Xuan

L. D.

(2012, July). Usage of social media for political communication. 16th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

50.

Storck

(2011, December 20). The role of social media in political mobilisation: A case study of the January 2011 Egyptian uprising (Master’s thesis). University of St Andrews, Scotland.

51.

Stumpel

(2010, August 16). The politics of social media Facebook: Control and resistance (Master’s thesis). University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

52.

Verba

Nie

N. H.

(1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

53.

Vitak

Zube

Smock

Carr

Ellison

Lampe

(2009, May). “Poking” people to participate: Facebook and political participation in the 2008 election. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

54.

We Are Social. (2019). Global digital report 2019. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/global-digital-report-2019

55.

Westling

(2007). Expanding the public sphere: The impact of Facebook on political communication. Social Media and Political Movement, 28, 835-860.

56.

Williams

(2003). Making sense of social research. London, England: Sage.

57.

Wimmer

R. D.

Dominick

J. R.

(2011). Mass media research: An introduction (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.

58.

Zaheer

(2016). Use of social media and political participation among university students. Pakistan Vision, 17, 278-299.