Int. J. Electronic Governance, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013
Politically un-interactive web: transformations of online politics in Slovenia Tanja Oblak Črnič* Department of Media and Communication Studies, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Email:
[email protected] *Corresponding author
Katja Koren Ošljak Department of Media and Communications, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria Email:
[email protected] Abstract: The present text approaches transformations of political institutions and their communication: first, from the perspective of their online representations and second, from the perspective of their designers and strategists. The paper argues that politicians use online tools and appear in online platforms according to the strategies designed by the very creators of online sites. The text focuses on the Slovene online political platform and its change over time, arguing that the early informational period of political online representations was transformed into a more individualised form of online politics. The strategic approach to online communication is grasped at different levels: it is a question of how the planners (1) perceive the web as a political tool, (2) understand the potential of interactivity and (3) reflect upon obstacles that disable two-way communication between political agents and citizens. A critical evaluation of the crucial obstacles to more interactive online political communication is presented. Keywords: online politics; interactivity; online campaigns; online political strategies. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Oblak Črnič, T. and Koren Ošljak, K. (2013) ‘Politically un-interactive web: transformations of online politics in Slovenia’, Int. J. Electronic Governance, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.37–52. Biographical notes: Tanja Oblak Črnič is an Associate Professor in the Department for Media and Communication Studies and a researcher at the Social Communication Research Center at the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). Her research is focused on e-democracy, changes of political communication on the web, interactivity of online media, and social dimensions of internet use in everyday life. Her recent publications include ‘Converging practices and discourses: Obstacles in production culture for interactivity in Slovenian online newspapers’ in Convergence (2013) and ‘Deliberation and online participation: the case of the Slovenian portal “I propose to the government”’ in the Journal of Comparative Politics (2011).
Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
37
38
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak Katja Koren Ošljak is a PhD candidate at the University of Klagenfurt, Austria, researching subject formations in online communities and motivation for posting online (case study of Twitter). Previously she worked as a researcher on the German-Austrian project Subject formations and digital culture at the University of Klagenfurt, Austria, Department of Media and Communications, and as a digital media and user experience expert for the agencies Innovatif and Futura DDB in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
1
Introduction
The great variety of different empirical projects that have been developing since the end of the nineties (Cross, 1998; Löfgren et al., 1999; Taylor and Burt, 1999) offers instructive insight into the vibrant research on communication and the participatory aspects of online technologies (Gibson et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2004; Gulati and Williams, 2007; Hooghe and Teepe, 2007; Kluver et al., 2007; Park and Perry, 2008). Research in this field are thematically heterogeneous, for they include analyses of discourse in computer-mediated environments (namely: forums, blogs and social media), the contribution of the internet to public access to information, analyses of electoral campaigns and studies on the internet’s effects on political awareness and citizens’ readiness to participate (Bimber 1998; Gibson et al., 2003). However, the extent to which new potential for political participation becomes effective is not dependant solely upon technological means. Technology is not a sufficient condition for solving problems of political engagement or apathy. As Street argued: “If democracy’s problems are practical, then technology may solve them, but if they are not, then technology merely reproduces them in a different form” (Street in Wheeler, 1998, p.227). Arterton (1987) was one of the first to argue that the democratisation of public communication is more a question of (political) strategy, which determines concrete communicative practices, than of mere technique. This means that the use of technological mechanisms is primarily determined by the aims, purposes and expectations of developers, who organise, conduct and control the organisational structure in a concrete situation (Arterton, 1987, p.184). Therefore, it is important to understand how the strategies of political institutions respond to online challenges. With this goal in mind, the present text approaches the transformations of political institutions and their communication in two ways: first, from the perspective of their online representations; and second, from the perspective of their designers and strategists. As Davis and Owen (1998, p.113) note, as a political tool, the web (a) offers easier access to news and political information, (b) enables new ways for making contact with public officials and citizens, (c) opens up new sites for political discussion, and, finally, (d) it supports new options for opinion-gathering and for analysing the public climate. In this paper, we argue that the way in which politicians use online tools and appear in online platforms depends upon the strategies designed by the very creators of online sites. The strategic approach to online communication can be grasped at several different levels. It is a question of how planners (a) perceive the web as a political tool, (b) how they understand the potential for interactivity and (c) how they reflect upon obstacles that may disable two-way communication between political agents and citizens. In an
Politically un-interactive web
39
analytical sense, the way political institutions ‘live online’ can be perceived as an indicator of openness towards public (co)operation and dialogic communication with citizens, or quite the opposite – a static, hierarchically designed structure that prefers a system of controlled information and the centralisation of contents. However, online images of political institutions are changing over time, mainly due to rapid changes in online tools and in the potential of the web. The question, therefore, is to what extent these mediated political spaces are interactive and which patterns of selfpresentation of political agents are formed, especially during electoral campaigns (Römmele, 2003; Gulati and Williams, 2007; Hooghe and Teepe, 2007; Kluver et al., 2007). For this purpose, it is relevant to explain the online transformations of political representations in a wider context. Just like online participation and participatory culture in general, there are some challenges in participatory online campaigning in politics that must be considered. Some of the pre-electoral activities in which web tools have increasing importance include not only online fundraising, which is typical, e.g. in the US context, but also engagement in discourse and the content of the declared politics, the creation of alternative politics, mobilisation and recruiting. This paper focuses on the Slovene online political platform and its changes over time, arguing that the early informational period of political online representations has changed into a more individualised form of online politics. All of the results at the level of political web representations are drawn from the original data set, which was sampled and organised during three separate periods of time: in late nineties and early 2000, mid2000, and late 2000s. Even if the most of the Slovenian parliamentary parties were already present on the web by 2004, the options for public interactions between citizens and politicians generally remained scarce. While the campaign for the parliamentary elections in 2008 demonstrated that political actors’ websites had become an important part of the wider media environment, nevertheless, these remained communicatively limited and relatively closed (Oblak et al., 2011). A longitudinal analysis of web tools and the contents of Slovene political parties and candidates presented here will show a peak in interactivity on the web platforms in the 2008 parliamentary elections, followed by a decline in the 2012 presidential elections. Instead, a trend towards increased individualisation and personalisation emerged, particularly within the context of web campaigns. In this respect, another empirical dimension is added to this study: the communication strategy designed by creators of online representations. In total, five online strategists that have been prominent on the internet since early 2004 and have been working for the liberal-central part of Slovenian politics participated in in-depth structured interviews.1 These interviews with online strategists for different Slovenian political parties revealed the main trends in the electoral campaigns in history up to the present day. A critical evaluation of the crucial obstacles to more interactive online political communication is offered.
2
Political institutions on the web
The web represents a challenge to the common understanding of political participation and communication. Political institutions and their candidates are representing themselves not only through classical media, but also through their websites, Facebook profiles, blogs, forums, tweets, etc. Here, they express their goals, provide information offer services, and invite citizens to participate in their political projects. Political
40
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak
institutions organise themselves, and their views on politics and public issues within several mediated environments. These environments not only represent them, but also include them in complex communication processes with their audiences – citizens and potential voters.
2.1 The early context of the political web The web environment has developed from a simple, text-based communication medium with limited access into a multimedia phenomenon with mass audiences. As Resnick (1998) argued more than a decade ago, when the fluid and unstructured politics of discussion newsgroups and public forums was replaced by the organised politics of the web, structured by formal presentations in the form of websites, the internet ‘lost its political innocence’. Cyberspace gradually changed, primarily due to the invasion of websites and organised online presentations, into a space with its own economy and with concerns regarding the protection of private property (Resnick, 1998, p.51). It was in such context that new institutions emerged, and novel policies and practices appeared. The main leverage that accompanied this change of ‘lost innocence’ was the introduction and rapid spread of the web. With its graphical sophistication and its hypertext site focus, the web not only introduced new services, but also changed its dominant uses. The nature of communicative action was transformed. From unstructured, text-based interactive practices emerged organised, monological homepage presentations. Here, several political institutions – political parties, parliaments, governments and ministries, local municipalities, and NGOs – imported their images and their inner activities to the web. These websites were filled with information, pictures, visualisations, advertisements, entertainment and links for surfing the net. Because the design of websites implied the presentation of coherent positions, as well as the ability to inform, influence and persuade those who logged on, new political experiences were created: politics on the web presented a structured experience by reflecting the organised structure of pluralistic political life in the real world (Resnick, 1998, p.49). However, as practical experiences with representation of institutions on the internet have shown, political actors were more inclined towards self-presentation and information delivery than interaction and relationship-building with citizens, specific interest groups, or members of social movements. A vague body of research has flourished in this respect. Scholars began by analysing the reactions of the USA and UK political parties to the web; this was followed by analyses of other countries, such as The Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and among others (Davis, 1999; Taylor and Burt, 1999; Margolis and Resnick, 2001; Gibson et al., 2003). These early studies of online experiences revealed that an interactive climate within traditional political institutions was uncommon.2 The first analyses of the representations of political parties on the web pointed out that the internet functioned mostly as a one-way channel, and less as a tool to provoke discussion of political matters, let alone as a mechanism to mobilise the masses or as a space to strengthen influence on political events. There were also many parliamentary websites that, intentionally or not, failed to include any possibility of discussing political issues between citizens and representatives (Carter, 1999; Löfgren et al., 1999).3 This practice was embodied at both national and local levels. A general evaluation of the early attempts confirmed the hypothesis – despite some optimistic exceptions – that the web alone does not necessarily contribute to the democratisation of
Politically un-interactive web
41
political communication. Moreover, the web has functioned more as a consolidator of already existent communication relationships and political power, rather than as a new media for mobilisation (Norris, 2001).
2.2 Renaissance of the interactive web? It is precisely within this context that we can begin to understand Barber’s early critique that “even on the handful of ‘serious’ sites that can be found, what is available is mostly superficial information about political parties, platforms, and candidates, of the kind you can get by mail, or polarised debates around the conventional talk radio extremes with little in the way of real facilitation, discussion or persuasion” (Barber, 1997, p.269).
However, one of the inherent elements of the web that was represented as a positive change was the question of interactivity. From the very beginning, interactivity was perceived as a stimulating technological feature of computer networks, implying active and inclusive two-way communication that would promote a more democratic and more involved citizenry in the online political sphere. When applied to the political platform on the web, in general this meant that online actors should work together, ask questions and give answers, formulate proposals and solutions, create policies, and carry out actions. But the obstacles that appeared in online practices were not necessarily technological in nature.4 As a consequence, the key role of the interactive web and its potential to revitalise political online platforms remained unfulfilled. “Political parties of all sizes and ideological hues, voluntary organisations, pressure groups and other organisations in civil society are exploring computer-mediated communication as a means not only to reach supporters and bypass the traditional media filters, but to network with one another, sharing information and resources. For many, CMC [computer-mediated communication] holds the key to the enhancement of the democratic aspects for the political process and to the creation of new opportunities for citizen participation in the local and national political spheres” (Bryan et al., 1998, p.2)
New media overcame the internal organisational hierarchy and intensified the individual’s sense of being involved in internal action. This, in turn, contributed to the formation of a collective identity and promoted strong collective actions (Schmidtke, 1998, pp.69–71). With the appearance of the so-called web 2.0, which generated easy-touse software and created an ‘architecture of participation’ (O’Reilly, 2007, p.17, 22) that soon came to be labelled the ‘interactive web’, new internet platforms developed in the revitalised form of the ‘social web’ (online social networks). Again, dialogically constituted collectivities emerged. These resulted from conversational interconnection between their members, and the debate surrounding the potential for integrative political dialogue between citizens and political elite re-emerged. A new participatory culture evolved; this benefits expressivity, collaborative problem-solving, circulation, and affiliations around online media (Jenkins et al., 2009, p.3). However, judging from the prevailing practices and recent developments, the implications of the participatory web are realised more effectively in civil societies and social movements; there are fewer changes in the world of institutionalised politics (Bentivegna, 2006). However, when it comes to making a decision about how to ‘teach’
42
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak
politicians to ‘use the web’, those who plan communication strategies in practice also carry some responsibility. Their expertise is vital for many purposes: first and most importantly, they can reduce the digital divide in the sense of the differentiation between the advanced internet usage of Digital Millennials and that of the less experienced Digital Immigrants (Prensky, 2001).5 Experts in political online communication witness a discrepancy between politicians, who are mature in the one-dimensional monologist presentation of political programmes to voters on the one hand, and growing pool of digitally agile voters, who are able to adapt online communicative spaces to their exact needs, on the other hand. The online-communication strategists and campaign managers influence contemporary interactions between politicians and citizens, and have leverage to change the field of political communication. However, the question remains whether using the web in practice helps to bridge the gap between these two diverse styles of communication.
2.3 Political participative campaigns During the last decade, the internet has come to be recognised as a prevalent tool for political campaigning in the USA (Herrnson et al., 2007). It tends to increase the inclusiveness of electors in campaigns outside of the USA as well. The results of the study of internet’s effects on political motivation and participation in Spain showed that the advanced internet users participate online even without greater motivation or interest in politics (Borge and Cardenal, 2011, p.23). The web media and communities such as Facebook, Twitter or blogs have the potential to bridge the gaps with politicians. With uniform presentations on the profile pages and evenly structured messages, their web incidence is just like everyone else’s. This means that, in the structures of Facebook or Twitter, politicians are on the same communicative and social levels as electors. The greater potential to engage with political candidates over web platforms facilitates the concretisation and a greater understanding of represented political topics. Data from the Pew Research Center show that 73% of adult US users, which is 54% of all US adults, took part in online political activities in 2010.6 But when it comes to activities beyond the consumption of election contents, e.g. taking part in online discussions or volunteering in campaigns, the percentage of US adults who were politically engaged online in 2010 drops to a mere 4–8% (Smith, 2011). One reason for such a discrepancy could be the difference between advanced and less experienced internet users, along with an episodic understanding of the web platforms. The latter are used extensively for informing electors and promoting candidates during campaigns, and political engagement on such web platforms outside the election period and beyond the electoral goals falls far behind (Larsson, 2011). One less evident aspect of the diversification of online political campaigns and participative campaigning is the digital divide between politicians. As one study of campaign politics and candidate internet use in the US legislative elections revealed, “candidates with longer careers in electoral politics were consistently less likely to campaign online than those with shorter careers” (Herrnson et al., 2007, p.39). It might be the case that the less prominent political subjects are trying to gain power and clout in the politically still mainly vacant and affordable web. In the early 2000s in the USA, momentum-based election strategies were not yet obsolete; overall, the web still primarily served insiders and reinforced existing political voices (Paolino and Shaw, 2003). From observations of actual political online campaigning, it seems that mainly grass-roots movements engage internet
Politically un-interactive web
43
users in the greater participation. One clear example of users’ political engagement and participative campaigning is the platform Mideast Youth,7 which is regularly developing online campaigning tools for various political goals in the Middle East (e.g. minority rights, releasing arrested bloggers from prison, shaping discursive political forums, and formulating political alternatives). In contrast, institutional politics campaigning, especially in the USA, prefers more mundane Internet tools (e.g. email) and tends to ignore online social tools for coproduction (Nielsen, 2007).
3
Political institutions between web representations and online strategies: the Slovenian case
A good indication of the extent to which new media are seen as important by political actors is the presentation and dispersal of political institutions online. This is how “a state shows its technological development and its openness for cyberspace visitors” (Purcell, 1999, p.16). In this section, the developmental path of the Slovene political scene on the web is presented in order to demonstrate how the significance of online communication in the political context has changed over time. Key landmarks are determined on the basis of regular qualitative analyses of online representations of chosen political institutions in different periods (Oblak, 2003; Oblak and Željan, 2007). The Slovenian state and its political institutions accepted the web as a new political platform very slowly; only in 2001 a centralised governmental web portal was established, while the websites of parliamentary political parties and the images of prominent political candidates emerged later within different political campaigns. Since the early appearance of Slovenian political parties and their candidates, the discrepancies between liberal and conservative parties in the understanding of the potential of the web became evident. While the liberal parties accepted the web as a necessary tool in relation to the citizens, the conservative parties engaged with the web in a much more reserved fashion.8 However, online representations never emerge in a neutral technical framework. We assume that the way state institutions and political actors appear online largely depends upon their strategic planning and understanding of political communication. Here, the analysis is focused on online strategies in concrete web campaigns in order to provide answers regarding three interrelated topics: (a) the understanding and usage of the term ‘interactivity’ within the campaign; (b) the reactions of politicians to online campaigns; and (c) the role of the web in changing communication between candidates and potential voters.
3.1 Methods and sample Altogether, the analysis included governmental portals, political parties’ websites and their interactive tools, and three different campaigns: 2004 EU parliament, 2008 national parliament, and the 2012 presidential campaign. The time scale given in Section 3.2 is thus a result of the longitudinal analyses of the selected websites, their published texts, and online tools. The first governmental portal, together with its ministries’ websites, was analysed qualitatively. In addition the interactive tools (like discussion forums, web polls, and e-mail addresses) have been counted and checked. The main sites for online campaigns after 2004 were chosen selectively in order to show how the primary online
44
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak
discourse was transformed from primarily informational to more direct self-promotion of political actors. Only the introductory part is accompanied by a secondary qualitative analysis of the ‘Slovenian state on the web’ (Purcell, 1999). The second part of the empirical analysis is focused on the in-depth interviews with the Slovenian online strategists in political campaigns that create the images of political agents on the web and have played an important role in the Slovene political online environment. The data collection from the campaign experts was conducted in two ways: first, in the 2008 parliamentary campaign, all six major political parties that entered the parliament were contacted, and three of them responded to the interview: the long-time online strategist of the Social Democrats (SD) and the former president of the Republic of Slovenia, Danilo Türk; the online strategist of the Zares – New Politics; and the leader of the three online campaigns of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia (LDS). In a brief history of the Slovenian political online platform, all three of these parties were the ones that had shown the most interest in renewing their online tools. Since two of the parties have been part of governmental coalitions for many years, they indirectly framed the political standards for how the government should speak online. In addition, we contacted all three major online campaign leaders of the recent 2012 presidential campaign, and only one headquarters participated, but with two separate strategists for the candidate Danilo Türk.9 The in-depth expert interviews lasted one to two hours. Interviews with the three ‘parties’ strategists’ took place in September 2009, after they had cooperated in the parliamentary elections in 2008. The interviews with ‘presidential strategists’ were conducted around the first round of the presidential elections in November 2012, when their client won second place and ranked for the finals planned for the following month. The textual data collected was analysed with qualitative content analysis, which is similar to open coding in Grounded Theory (Glaser et al., 2005/1967). First, an understanding of the context for the appointed research categories was constructed: interactivity, between strategist–political subject and political subject–campaign relationships, citizens’ role in the political campaign, and the comparison of online campaign activities with offline campaign activities. Second, with selective coding (Glaser et al., 2005/1967), the qualitative analysis of the appointed categories was utilised to discover tendencies, such as the interdependence of political campaigning in new and old media, the discursive openness and casual tone of political web platforms, and the discrepancy between different conceptualisations of interactivity.
3.2 Slovenian political scenery on the web between 1998 and 2008 1998–2002: The web as an informational portal – The first qualitative analysis of representational sites of Slovene political institutions was showed at the end of the nineties; Slovenia decided to have image on the web that would function as a space for lobbying. This only offered a platform for domestic users to have access to information and services (Purcell, 1999, p.56). Regarding their relationship with the users as citizens, the government online sites during that period maintained a distinctly monologic way of communicating, and the sites were constructed as noticeboards that were meant first and foremost to inform users. The presence of political parties on the web was predominantly an exception to the rule.10 Most governmental ministries in 2001 played the role of mere online mediator, mediating information or public relations releases. Even in the informative sense, the websites seemed to be pure: only a small portion of the ministries
Politically un-interactive web
45
enabled access to meeting reports, and only three ministries allowed for contact through email (Oblak, 2003). In 2002, a new portal, see www.gov.si, invited internet users to two novelties: a new discussion board was opened, and a visit to virtual governmental offices was enabled.11 But practice showed that the established mechanism of dialogue did not achieve satisfactory interest among public, and it never actually functioned as a space for the exchange of opinions. 2003–2005: The search for an interactive online identity – By 2003, all six parliamentary parties were present on the web, but there were some important differences between them: one did not have a general email address to which visitors could send email; half only had email addresses of selected representatives of the parties; and only three parties published the email addresses of the party leader. Half of the websites were equipped with discussion forums, and five offered the possibility to fill out an online poll. Political parties used the online space for attaining new adherents surprisingly badly, which became especially clear during the first electoral campaign for members of the European Parliament in May 2004.12 Despite a relatively monotonous and universal logic in terms of the appearance of political agents on the web, this campaign had one candidate (Lojze Peterle) who indicated the direction towards which the later period of online representations would partly move.13 It was the first time that a politician also represented himself online as ‘a father, a husband, and beekeeper’; this was the first step in the ‘stylistic revolution’ of new media culture towards the emotionalisation and ‘celebrification’ of politics (Luthar, 2008, p.95). 2006–2008: The exposure of political faces – This added a new approach alongside the conservative, institutional form of informational politics: an approach that put an individualised personalisation of a political story at the centre, and that strove more for the mediation of the intimate personality than for informational functionality. In the light of these changes, it is not surprising that political actors moved towards individualisation in electoral campaigns: the online portal of the Association for Justice and Development, founded by the ex-president of Slovenia, Janez Drnovšek, appeared in 2006. It could count as the first example of a political blog of a visible political figure. After that, other presidential candidates followed: in 2007, the candidate for president, Danilo Türk, directed part of his campaign on the online blog. In the campaign for parliamentary elections one year later, other examples stood out visibly: then the first women president of the LDS, Katarina Kresal, attracted voters by her surprisingly responsive appearance on Facebook and Twitter; the SD entered the political battle with an online project ‘Red Book’, while Zares began a trend of the interactive blog that attracted sympathisers in regular and unmoderated comments. In all of these cases, a breakthrough in the online application of web 2.0 was noticeable for the first time. The electoral campaign to enter the parliament in 2008 showed that the online sites of political agents had become an important part of the wider media space, which, until recently, had mostly avoided online politics.
3.3 Political strategies and online campaigns The relevance of the Slovene political online presence and campaigning culminated in the parliamentary elections in 2008 with the online campaigning of the three parties, the SD, Zares, and LDS. The analysis of online tools and activities revealed that these three parties were the most technologically and communicatively advanced political subjects
46
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak
within Slovene online politics. Their online communication strategists were perceived as outreach sources for reflection regarding interactivity within Slovene online political campaigning and the perception of online political transformations. Since the online engagement of Slovene political subjects turned almost entirely to having a presence in social media in 2012, and none of the three advisors interviewed in 2009 took part in strategic planning of a candidates’ online campaign, further interviews with the planners of the recent campaigns were carried out. The expertise of strategists and the web industry seems to have had a great influence on the Slovene (online) political scene.
3.3.1 The Interdependence of new and old media Judging from the responses of the five interviewees, the key encouraging factor that contributed to the greater popularity of online communication in the political sphere lies not so much in new technology, but in the responses of the ‘old’ media to the ‘new’ media. If the web was relatively overlooked as a space of public action before 2008, lately the number of stories and journalistic contributions connected to the rise of web applications and social media has increased significantly. Thus, in the political scene, a partial ‘convergence of contents’ between the web and traditional media has come to life. The strategists stressed that the worlds of traditional and new media are no longer separated. The 2008–2009 SD party and 2007 Türk strategist emphasised how important it is that the contents of different media formats be interwoven: ‘The nature of reactions of a political party or a politician vis-à-vis the contents that appear in blogs, forums, comments, social networks, or that are published in the print media, or broadcast on radio or television must not contain big differences’. Thus, the communication strategy of political action must not strictly differentiate between offline and online tactics. Similarly, the 2008–2009 online strategist of the LDS party believes that nowadays ‘two fields converge’: the mass media (including the web), on the one hand, and fieldwork, on the other. The advantage of the web is that it offers mechanisms for very simple distribution and communication, which also includes an important novelty in comparison to other media. Namely, with the use of the internet, political parties (and other agents) have ‘their own medium which they can completely control without any censorship’. In 2012, both 2012 Türk strategists noted that there had been a decline in content-based discussions (e.g. formation of political dialogue) on the party’s web spaces. The increased presence on social media, such as Twitter, Facebook or YouTube, in fact provoked few questions about the political content. Nevertheless, it did predominantly expand their presence on the internet, since ‘you simply must be present on the web’ as the Türk 2012 strategist noted. In the 2012 presidential campaign, the new media were mostly used for presentations, similar to how TV shows would be used, but the dialogical component of the engagement in political content declined in comparison to the 2009 campaigns.
3.3.2 An open medium in specific political structures The three strategists engaged in campaigns from 2007 to 2009 reported major efforts to establish dialogical relationships between their candidates, parties and the citizens. The 2008–2009 Zares strategists in particular emphasised the party’s great aspiration to establish new political solutions on the party’s dialogical online platform. The possibilities of using the potential of online forums do not end with this. As the 2008–
Politically un-interactive web
47
2009 LDS strategists put it, one important advantage of the web is that ‘politicians can ‘relax’ in their reports to the public. Maybe they can give less formal answers or explain something with more words, and they do not have to be afraid that someone will cut their words and take something out of context’. There is a new possibility for automatic addition of links to statements and ideas that have already been given. The 2008–2009 LDS party strategists also explained that the socalled ‘constructing of the context’ is much more powerful on the internet than in traditional media, where the temporal component of saying something is limited and possibly also unfair. According to the 2008–2009 Zares online strategists, a further reason for the breakthrough of new patterns of action was the appearance of certain tools; this later introduced an internet paradigm that includes mass population on the basis of two-way communication. But an abundance of technical potential for creating dialogue, as the Zares strategist argued, is not a sufficient condition for creating structural changes in the communicative relationship between participants, for the key problem remains: in the political world, ‘advertising, promotional communication predominates’ even now. There are huge differences between what the internet offers and how it is used in political discourse. Here, it is important to understand that at the end of an electoral campaign, communication from political agents occurs in another context, which can thoroughly change the image of ‘an open channel’ over the course of time. Besides, communication strategies depend very much on the position of a political party before and after elections. As the 2008–2009 SD party and 2007 Türk strategists emphasised, it is important which principle of ‘electronic governance’ the leading party supports and how it understands the possibility of fulfilling pre-electoral promises via online tools. Therefore, it is not surprising that, in practice, the creation of online communication strategies after elections depends directly on the outcome. As the 2008–2009 LDS strategists also pointed out, if ‘the party forms a coalition, i.e. forms the government, the communication that was previously limited to the party now divides into three levels: the parliamentary part that joins the party’s part, and the executive part’. As a result, the communicative focus is significantly dispersed. In contrast, one of Türks’ 2012 strategists demonstrated a different understanding of the openness of new media. In her opinion, social networks have the potential for offering a greater presence and allowing politicians to share more about themselves, which could also be in the citizens’ interest.
3.3.3 Interactivity as an old-fashioned term? At least on a conceptual level, there seems to be a great discrepancy between theory and practice in the relationship to the principle of interactivity in online action. While in scientific texts, ‘interactivity’ is an important term (Förnas et al., 2002; Jensen, 2002), the concept as such is not necessarily used in practical political projects. One 2012 Türk strategist described interactivity as a technological characteristic, on the one hand, but has nevertheless exposed it further as a communicative politeness that demands politicians’ response to citizens, on the other hand. In addition, the other 2012 Türk strategist expressed doubts regarding the quality of many interactions on social networks, since there were few ‘real’ discussions between politicians and potential electors. Two further interviewees explicitly stated that interactivity is an ‘obsolete’ term from the nineties, tainted by many ‘promises that were unrealisable’, and today it is ‘too abstract’, for it is ‘indefinable’, and consequently, in practice, it is also ‘inefficient’. Interactivity
48
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak
has a ‘plural’ status, for it refers to many different phenomena. In practice, it has been substituted by the concept of ‘dialogue’ (a term cited by the 2008–2009 SD and 2007 Türk strategist). This term intuitively suggests a communication relationship, not just a technical application of the given characteristics of an online site. Similarly, the 2008– 2009 LDS strategist differentiated between technical and social levels of interactivity: technically speaking, he directed attention not only to text and photographs, but also to the use of video, music, digital books, etc. in the online context. The LDS strategist also referred to the other dimension of interactivity as ‘raising interpersonal communication in the party itself’, where the most difficult part was convincing the leadership that such forms of action could actually bring good results. Moreover, some even speak in favour of creating a dialogue ‘in all directions’ (the 2008–2009 SD and 2007 Türk strategist). Despite obvious encouragement for politicians to interactively connect with the general public via the web, the interviewees emphasised some key obstacles that must be overcome. According to the 2008–2009 LDS strategist, the key problem for politicians is ‘fear and censorship’, whereas there is ‘some sense of helplessness’ among users: That is to say, when (users) sign a certain petition, probably nothing happens. They send some e-mail, and there is no answer. They send an initiative, and there is no answer. They comment the programme, and nothing happens with these comments. Thus, they engage in some way, they invest their time, energy, etc. but there is none of the effect that they expect.
The 2008–2009 SD and 2007 Türk strategist shared similar thoughts. The obstacles that lead to the lack of the realisation of interactivity in the Slovene environment are predominantly the result of three shortcomings: first, politicians, as well as users, are ‘a bit disconnected’ in terms of the use of feedback in communication; second, ‘there is no democratic heritage in relationship to the internet in Slovenia’ that would urge agents to use more active forms of communication via the web; and third, there are obviously no initiatives to convince users that such an action is welcome. On the other hand, the 2008–2009 Zares added that the obstructive factor lies in the technology itself: for ‘the possibility to express does not exist in all structures’.
4
Conclusions
If the main reasons online strategists cite for the otherwise grander awakening of political action via the web are summarised, it could be said that political agents recognised the possibility of the online space as an ‘autonomous’, uncensored medium via which they could express their points of view, ideas, and visions in a way that enabled an individual political institution to have greater control over the mediated contents and over the reactions of audiences. For political parties, the web is an additional political platform that they can tailor to their needs, aims and wishes, and their appearance there can be more open and relaxed in comparison to other media. Thus, the move towards online strategies, revealed through the move towards the increased use of interactive online tools on the part of certain political agents, does indicate an overcoming of the ‘old’ informational and promotional ways of engaging in online action. There is a move in the direction of more active, more-open-to-the-public communication. Nevertheless, this move faces serious limitations: the readiness to have a dialogue usually diminishes at the end of each electoral campaign, and political agents do not have much confidence or inclination to include it naturally in their ‘online identity space’. There are also obstacles
Politically un-interactive web
49
on the part of users, who are seeking new ways of cooperating in the political sphere, but who have had bad experiences that stem from a sense of powerlessness. Interest in ‘faces on the web’ decreases among political agents after the elections are over, which, structurally speaking, hinders a more total change in political communication via the web. This ‘limited interactivity’ or ‘pseudo-interactivity’ (Oblak and Petrič, 2005; Vobič 2009) is not necessarily an indicator of citizens’ apathy, but can often derive from institutions, which are not willing to adapt to technological changes. Technologies and their uses are always chosen selectively, while models for their implementation are strongly related to political online strategies. A much more promising move in the direction of collective cooperation between government institutions and citizens’ initiatives was illustrated by the project predlagam.vladi.si, which ‘enables the strengthening of a dialogue between the civil society and state, and the inclusion of initiatives of citizens in the processes of forming government’s politics’, and is, consequently, the first serious attempt to reactivate citizens’ desire to take the initiative and make suggestions, and to include people in the formation of politics.14 It would be only partially correct, however, to conclude that the main reason for the unfulfilled promises of implementation projects are limitations that originate from the ‘conservative’ worldview of the representatives of political institutions. It would be more fruitful to explore the specifics of web representations in comparison to those that characterise classic media. One should not forget that new forms of web representations that are emerging in cyberspace have an integral part in the constitution of the electronic public sphere. Through their particular forms, they offer great opportunities for interested users, citizens, individuals or groups and institutions to participate in this sphere. Buchstein (1997) proposed that explanations of the relationship between the internet and its potential to stimulate democratic social relations should turn to the analysis of existing democratic institutions. The internet, in his opinion, is comparatively more difficult to employ as a means for building new forms of democratic public spheres than as a support for those that already exist. The internet seems more helpful and significant in terms of the expression of opinions than in political decision-making. Communication and participation processes that characterise developed public and political platforms suggest that the possibilities are far from exhausted. However, the research should also turn more systematically to the contexts of their contemporary use and implications, starting perhaps with the assumption that “technology is not a fate one must chose for or against, but a challenge to political and social creativity” (Feenberg, 1999, p.225).
References Arterton, C.F. (1987) Teledemocracy: Can Technology Protect Democracy? Sage, London. Barber, B. (1997) ‘The new telecommunications technology: endless frontier or the end of democracy’, Constellations, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.208–226. Bentivegna, S. (2006) ‘Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs’, European Journal of Communication, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp.331–343. Bimber, B. (1998) ‘The internet and political mobilization’, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.391–401. Borge, R. and Cardenal, A.S. (2011) ‘Surfing the net: a pathway to participation for the politically uninterested?’, Policy & Internet, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.34–62.
50
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak
Bryan, C., Tsagarousianou, R. and Tambini, D. (1998) ‘Electronic democracy and the civic networking movement in context’, in Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D. and Bryan, C. (Eds): Cyberdemocracy: Technology, Cities and Civic Networks, Routledge, London, pp.1–17. Buchstein, H. (1997) ‘Bytes that bite: the internet and deliberative democracy’, Constellations, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.248–263. Carter, M. (1999) ‘Speaking up in the internet age: use and value of constituent e-mail and congressional web-sites’, in Taylor, C. and van de Donk, W. (Eds): Parliament in the Age of the Internet, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.102–117. Cross, B. (1998) ‘Teledemocracy: Canadian political parties listening to their constituents’, in Alexander, C.J. and Pal, L.A. (Eds): Digital Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.132–148. Davis, R. (1999) The Web of Politics: The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Davis, R. and Owen, D. (1998) New Media and American Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology, Routledge, London. Fortunati, L. (2005) ‘Mediatization of the net and internetization of the mass media’, Gazette: The International Journal for Communization Studies, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp.27–44. Gibson, R., Nixon, P. and Ward, S. (2003): Net Gain? Political Parties and the Internet, Routledge, London. Gibson, R., Rommele, A. and Ward, S.J. (2004): Electronic Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and Participation via new ICTs, Routledge, London. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (2005/1967) Grounded Theory: Strategien qualitativer Forschung, Verlag Hans Huber, Bern. Gulati, G.J. and Williams, C.B. (2007) ‘Closing the gap, rising the bar’, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.443–465. Hacker, L.K. (1996) ‘Missing links in the evolution of electronic democratization’, Media, Culture and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.213–132. Hague, B.N. and Loader, B.D. (1999) Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age, Routledge, London. Herrnson, P.S., Stokes-Brown, A.K. and Hindman, M. (2007) ‘Campaign politics and the digital divide: constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and candidate internet use in state legislative elections’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp.31–42. Hooghe, M. and Teepe, W. (2007) ‘Party profiles on the web’, New Media and Society, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp.965–985. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A.J. and Weigel, M. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, The MacArthur Foundation, Chicago. Jensen, B.K. (2002) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research, Routledge, London. Kluver, R., Jankowski, N.W., Foot, K.A. and Schneider, S.M. (2007) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning, Routledge, London. Larsson, A.O. (2011) ‘“Extended infomercials” or “Politics 2.0”? A study of Swedish political party web sites before, during and after the 2010 election’, First Monday, Vol. 16, No. 4. Löfgren, K., Andresen, K.V. and Sorensen, M.F. (1999) ‘The Danish parliament going virtual’, in Coleman, S. (Ed.): Parliament in the Age of the Internet, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.131–140. Margolis, M. and Resnick, D. (2000) Politics as Usual, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Luthar, B. (2008) Proizvodnja slave: Politika v popularni kulturi, FDV, Ljubljana. Nielsen, R.K. (2007) ‘Mundane internet tools, mobilizing practices, and the coproduction of citizenship in political campaigns’, New Media & Society, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.755–771.
Politically un-interactive web
51
Nixon, P. and Johansson, H. (1999) ‘Transparency through technology: the internet and political parties’, in Hague, B.N. and Loader, B.D. (Eds): Digital Democracy, Routledge, London, pp.135–153. Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Oblak, T. (2003) Izzivi e-demokracije (Challenges of e-democracy), FDV, Ljubljana. Oblak, T. and Petrič, G. (2005) Splet kot medij in mediji na spletu (Web as a medium and media on the web), FDV, Ljubljana. Oblak, T. and Željan, K. (2007) ‘Slovenian online campaigning during the 2004 European parliament election: struggling between self-promotion and mobilization’, in Randolph, K., Jankowski, N., Foot, K. and Schneider, S.M (Eds): The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning, Routledge, London, pp.60–76. Oblak, T., Prodnik, J. and Trbižan, N. (2011) ‘Deliberation and online participation: the case of the Slovenian portal “I propose to the government”’, Journal of Comparative Politics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.90–110. O’Reilly, T. (2007) ‘What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software’, Communication & Strategies, No. 65, pp.17–37. Paolino, P. and Shaw, D.R. (2003) ‘Can the internet help outsider candidates win the presidential nomination?’, Political Science and Politics, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.193–197. Park, H.M. and Perry, J.L. (2008) ‘Do campaign websites really matter in electoral civic engagement?’, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.190–212. Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’, On the Horizon, Vol. 9, No. 5. Available online at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20natives,% 20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2012). Purcell, D. (1999) The Slovenian State on the Internet, Open Society Institute, Ljubljana. Resnick, D. (1998) ‘Politics on the internet: the normalization of cyberspace’, in Tolouse, C. and Luke, W.T. (Eds): The Politics of Cyberspace, Routledge, London, pp.48–68. Römmele, A. (2003) ‘Political parties, party communication and new information and communication technologies’, Party Politics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.7–20. Schmidtke, O. (1998) ‘Berlin in the net: prospects for cyberdemocracy from above and from below’, in Tsagarousianou, R. (Ed.): Cyberdemocracy, Routledge, London, pp.60–83. Smith, A. (2011) ‘The internet and campaign 2010’, Pew Internet Center. Available online at: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The-Internet-and-Campaign-2010.aspx (accessed on 13 December 2012). Taylor, A.J. and Burt, E. (1999) ‘Parliaments on the web: learning through innovation’, in Coleman, S., Taylor, J. and van de Donk, W. (Eds): Parliament in the Age of the Internet, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.141–155. Wheeler, M. (1998) ‘Democracy and the information superhighway’, in Randall, V. (Ed.): Democratization and the Media, Frank Cass, London, pp.217–239.
Notes 1
2
To paint a more complete picture of the Slovene political web, other politicians and political parties should be included in the analysis as well; so far, however, they have shown no interest in cooperating in this research project. Nevertheless, the online communication experts, who offered insight into their expertise, were able to speak for the majority of the most advanced and innovative cases of the use of web-platforms among Slovene political subjects. The research by Nixon and Johansson (1999, p.142) has demonstrated that political parties in the Netherlands and in Sweden rarely understand the internet as a new information realm that could supplement or replace the role and significance of more traditional mass media.
52 3
4
5 6
7 8
9
10 11 12
13
14
T. Oblak Črnič and K. Koren Ošljak Löfgren noted that the preparation of the website did not emphasise the democratic objectives of increasing participation or creating possibilities for direct influence on policymaking. Instead, more ‘functional aspects’ have been the driving force for the implementation and maintenance of the website: “the web site has been largely designed for ‘traditional’ users (i.e. politicians and journalists)” (Löfgren et al., 1999, p.133). As Hacker (1996) commented in reference to the White House email project, it soon became clear that many internet practices are far from interactive: “Sending e-mail notes to President Clinton is not interactive. Nor is getting a form of letter stating that the President is glad to hear from you. Receiving a personal note (or other forms of message) in which answers are given to questions and responses are made directly to assertions is interactive” (p.227). Prensky’s discussion of the gap in internet usage focuses on teaching environments, but it can also be useful in the field of the internetisation of politics (Fortunati, 2005). In Slovenia, this was not necessarily the case. The latest Slovene political campaigns were still predominantly ‘inclusive’, meaning they have attained many followers, favourites, re-tweets, replies, or likes, but they failed in terms of real participation, since there is a notable lack of online content-driven political interactions between candidates and electors. Mideast Youth is web platform for social change (see online at: www.mideastyouth.org) since 2006. The stage for political parties in the Slovenian context is relatively small: until 2011, on average, within a concrete campaign for parliament, there were three prominent liberal parties (Social Democrats, Liberal Democratic Party and Zares) that tried to enter the parliament, and three conservative parties (Social Democratic Party, New Slovenia and Slovenian People Party). However, while the liberals are constantly using the web (and one party – Zares – even gained its identity through the web), among the conservative parties, only one (SDS) is strongly represented online. In 2007, Danilo Türk was elected with the support of the SD party. In 2012, he was supported by the party Positive Slovenia (Pozitivna Slovenija), while the SD Party supported his counter-candidate in the presidential elections. In 2000, there were 34 registered Slovene political parties, only six of which (18%) had their own online sites, and half of these were even not parliamentary parties. This news was accompanied with great publicity – the evening TV daily news on Slovene public television ‘closed’ with this information. In the procedure of the identification of the online sites that were appropriate for empirical analysis, web search engines Google and Najdi.si were used. In this automatic computerprogrammed procedure for identification, 168 hits were checked, and 94 online sites were included in the final sample. This identification occurred one month before the elections in April 2004, and the final selection of online sites was computer-generated. Lojze Peterle, a candidate for Member of Parliament of the European Union, had an independent online website that was in many ways different from the others: Peterle used the online space not only to promote his own political programme, but also to present his personality. The project started on 11 November 2009, and the first data were very encouraging: citizens sent as many as 103 different suggestions in about 14 days. The three topics with the highest number of responses reached more than 35 comments by mid-December 2009. A suggestion about the introduction of a blinking green light on traffic lights was the most commented topic (with 38 responses); this was followed by a suggestion about personal income (with 37 responses), and a suggestion entitled ‘let’s get rid of non-returnable containers and plastic bottles’ (with 36 responses). For a detailed description and empirical analysis of this tool, see Oblak et al. (2011).
