A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables of democratic e-participation with a focus on social media
| Autor | Anastasia Deligiaouri |
| Cargo | Adjunct Senior Lecturer |
| Páginas | 50-62 |
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
www.uoc.edu/idp
Submission date: April 2015
Accepted date: July 2015
Published in: December 2015
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Abstract
This paper aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the role and importance of e-participation in the
political process. The internet has introduced new ways and forms of political communication and citizen
participation in social and political life. In the era of digital democracy, the capabilities of citizens in terms
of participating directly in politics have been enriched significantly. Accordingly, the internet and the
technologies of Web 2.0 in particular have been invested with increased democratic expectations for
the renewal of democratic institutions. However, academic research broaches the democratic potential
of social media with reservation and highlights the loose connection between online and offline political
participation. In this paper, we explore the variables and factors that influence online political participation,
taking into consideration the new communicative codes introduced by social media. The analysis of the
paper is based on a literature review performed on recent studies in the field, which reveal a plurality
of variables and factors that should be analysed thoroughly and combined for the articulation of valid
conclusions in relation to the features and the political characteristics associated with the new forms
ARTICLE
A critical appraisal of forms,
features, factors and variables
of democratic e-participation
with a focus on social media*
Anastasia Deligiaouri
Adjunct Senior Lecturer
Technological Educational Institute of Western Macedonia, Greece
Anastasia Deligiaouri
50
* An earlier version of this article was published in Greek, in the Greek journal Zitimata Epikoinonias, (“Communication
Issues”), Volume 9, issues 18-19, 2014, pp. 19-33 with the title “Conceptualizations, Forms and Factors which influence
on line political participation”. The author was granted permission from the editors to publish the paper or parts of
it in English.
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
51
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
51
of political participation. Finally, we aim to proceed to the formulation ofsustainable arguments for the
political stake of democratic e-political participation, which continues to be the active involvement of
citizens in shaping politics.
Keywords
Political participation, e-participation, social media, digital democracy
Topic
Political science, media, communication studies
Una opinión crítica sobre las formas, los distintivos,
los factores y las variables de la participación ciudadana
electrónica centrada en los medios sociales
Resumen
Este documento pretende aportar un análisis detallado del papel y la importancia de la participación
electrónica en el proceso político. Internet ha introducido nuevas maneras y formas de comunicación
política, así como la participación de los ciudadanos en la vida social y política. En la era de la democracia
digital, se han enriquecido de manera considerable las capacidades de los ciudadanos que participan
directamente en política. En consecuencia, se ha invertido en internet y en las tecnologías de la web
2.0 en particular, con mayores expectativas democráticas para la renovación de las instituciones de-
mocráticas. Sin embargo, la investigación académica aborda con cautela este potencial democrático de
los medios sociales y destaca la poca conexión entre la participación política electrónica y presencial.
En este documento pretendemos explorar las variables y los factores que influencian la participación
política electrónica, teniendo en cuenta los nuevos códigos comunicativos que los medios sociales han
introducido. El análisis del artículo está basado en una reseña literaria sobre estudios recientes en este
campo que revelan una pluralidad de variables y factores que deberían de analizarse minuciosamente,
así como combinarse para articular unas conclusiones validas relacionadas con los rasgos y las caracte-
rísticas políticas que se asocian con las nuevas formas de participación política. Finalmente, aspiramos a
formular argumentos sustentados a favor de la apuesta política por la participación política electrónica
democrática, que siguesiendo la implicación activa de los ciudadanos a la hora de configurar la política.
Palabras clave
participación política, participación electrónica, medios sociales, democracia digital
Tema
ciencias políticas, medios de comunicación, estudios de comunicación
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
52
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
52
Introduction
New media and especially social media have a dynamic in-
built feature, which allows for bidirectional communication
between users. Social media offer new forms and alternative
ways of “digital” activity and political participation. Due
to these innovations, the modern concept of political
participation should be appraised from a different angle,
by evaluating these new forms of participatory politics. As
democracy has become increasingly digital, democratic
procedures have also acquired their digital equivalent.
New terms such as e-voting, e-deliberation, e-rulemaking,
e-consultation and e-government are the components of
the new digital democracy. Similarly, citizens have attained
a digital status and can be identified as “digital citizens” or
“netizens”, a common term used in the literature.
Given the central role of social media in modern political
culture, a significant number of studies focus on the
characteristics of these e-participation activities. At the
same time, the task to explicate the relationship between
online and offline political participation becomes critical. It is
challenging to investigate how these new forms of internet
activity, especially on social media, are associated with
political effects and if they can fulfil the essential content
of political participation.
Certainly, the most common measurement of political
participation is related to the participation of citizens in
the established institutions of democracy (political parties,
elections, etc.). The democratic non-institutionalized forms
of political participation occur in the democratic informal
associations of citizens, the “civil society” as it is known, or
they can be manifested in an online democratic activity. Studies
show that, nowadays, due to the decline in trust from citizens
with respect to traditional political institutions, such as political
parties, these forms of non-institutionalized participation
seem to be more compatible with the younger generation
of citizens and may be less demanding in terms of time and
commitment (Marien, Hooghe and Quintelier, 2010, p. 3). In
both cases, the main interpretation and significance of political
participation is the intention of political actors to influence
political decisions. Thus, meaningful political participation is
associated with an intended outcome on the political process.
We should also clarify from the beginning that we refer only to
participation in the context of and within democratic politics.
Since we have stressed the intentional and aim-centred
scope of political participation, it would be useful to cite
some of the main actions that regularly aim to produce a
political result: a) support for a political / ideological opinion;
b) expression of opposition to a political / ideological
opinion; c) introduction of a new political proposal; d)
action undertaken for the purpose of having an impact on
the decision-making process; e) influence on the existing
distribution of power. Obviously, this list is not exclusive,
but indicative, since the political outcome of an action may
vary from occasion to occasion.
Undoubtedly, the internet has expanded the ways in which
citizens can express their opinions and participate in the
political process. At times, the electronic dimension to
political participation is seen as a democratizing factor,
arguing that the unmediated access to the public sphere
of the internet benefits the condition of equality as it is open
and free to all without any special formalities. This position,
however, is not fully verified since the relevant literature
accentuates several independent variables and correlations
which affect this “openness”. Within the “overstretched”
political involvement in electronic activity in which many
democratic aspirations were invested lurks the danger of
a vague “expansion”of the term “participation” with many
new meanings. This contemporary polysemy of the concept
of “political participation” demands a complex variable
analysis.
To avoid the pitfall of a profuse polysemy of the term, we
should clarify at the outset that, in the following analysis,
an act of political participation is defined as one which is
associated with an intentional action on behalf of the subject
and the purpose of the participant is for this act to produce
some kind of political result(s)in the context of democratic
politics in the short or long term. Certainly, we should be
aware that the political intent of an action is not always
easily detectable and nor is the exploration of the possible
political effects over time. Nevertheless, the ability to change
the political situation, or the expectation and belief that this
would be achieved through participation (political efficacy),
has been identified as an important variable for involvement
in the political process (see Zhang et al., 2010, p. 81).
The above considerations form the context of our analysis.
In particular, in this article we will: a) provide a theoretical
framework for the analysis of offline and online participation;
b) critically discuss some of the main features of e-political
participation as they accrue from recent studies in the field
(2009-2015); c) elucidate and distinguish between the factors,
variables and conditions of e-political participation; d)
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
53
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
53
critically evaluate forms of online political activity of citizens
in relation to their prospective to produce political results.
1. Political participation
and e-political participation
Political participation is traditionally associated with electoral
politics and, at a broader level, with the decision-making
process. The well-known typology of an eight rung ladder
of “traditional” (offline) political participation provided by
Arnstein (1969) demonstrates the close relationship between
forms of political participation and power redistribution. The
ladder shows degrees of political participation which present
the difference between the “empty ritual of participation”
and the dominant decision-making role achieved by the
citizens. The last level of the ladder corresponds to “Citizens’
Control” in which full consideration of citizens’ participation
is guaranteed in policymaking.
In the realm of e-participation, Macintosh (2004, p. 3)
distinguishes three levels of electronic participation by
using as a criterion the degree of active citizenship via the
internet. The first level is defined as “e-enabling” (“electronic
activation”) and refers to the ability to access, use and
comprehend the information provided via the internet. The
second level refers to the use of technologies in order to
engage citizens (“e-engaging”) mainly through consultation
with official policy actors (top-down consultation). The third
and last level (“e-empowering”) describes an integrated
form of political participation. Citizens acquire more power
and are able to influence the political agenda and policy
decisions dynamically (bottom-up influence).
When approaching e-participation, we begin with the
question submitted by Jenkins, which, in our opinion,
illustrates the general scepticism surrounding the relevant
discussion in a vivid and understandable way. The question
posed by Jenkins,“Political participation in what?” (Jenkins
and Carpentier, 2013, p. 272-273), proposes two levels of
analysis: 1) the involvement of usersinsocial media; 2)
participation in politicsthroughthe agency of social media.1
The first level is a logical prerequisite for the second, but
it does not necessarily imply the transition to the second
level. We could also add a third level, in line with what we
have already said:3) political results from participation in
social media.
Thefirst level(participationin social media) refers to the
process in which users are engaged in web-based activities
but we cannot adjudicate for the political impact of these
actions. Even if a user frequently visits Facebook pages
with political content, we cannot identify this act as political
participation because the feature of deliberate influence in
the political sphere is not evident. The frequency of browsing
web pages with political content is an indicator of political
interest, at least at a preliminary stage. However, the time
spent on the internet is not commensurate with increased
political participation rates (Quintelier and Theocharis, 2013,
p. 286). An empirical study on young people in Belgium
confirms a disproportion between the time spent on the
internet and the political activation of the user. The latter is
more likely to be a dependent variable on the type of online
activity (Quintelier and Vissers, 2008, p. 423).
Thesecond level(participation through social media) refers
to the political participation of citizens who simply use the
internet as a means to actualize their interest. This happens
presumably either because:i) of the appropriateness of the
internet itself as a medium; ii) the particular citizen is more
familiar with the function of the internet; or iii) because
this action can take place only through the internet. More
specifically, for case (i), we can refer to email communication
between a user and a politician, just because it may be
considered as a more convenient way to get it touch than
visiting their office. For case (ii), we could mention the example
of young people and their familiarity with the internet, which
increases the possibility to choose a form of online participation
than a “traditional” approach of a politician. In case (iii), where
participation can take place only through the internet, we can
give as an example an online consultation in which participation
can take place only by using the specific e-platform.
Thethird level attempts to assess the possible impact of
online participation. This approach is essentially moving
in the opposite direction. By recognizing and valuing the
political result of an act, if any, we can then identify this
act as a political one.
Attempts at measuring e-political participation in the field
of academic research and international organisations have
1. A similar distinction is made by Carpentier (Jenkins and Carpentier 2013, p. 274) but with a different interpretation.
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
54
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
54
made significant achievements, but they have received
strong criticism, especially when the results do not take into
account the social context. As such, the UN e-participation
index, which actually counts the possibilities of interactive
participation of citizens provided on government sites with
an emphasis on consultation issues, was criticized because
it fails to asses efficiently the democratic values that exist
in several countries and how democratic a government of
a state actually is. This issue is discussed intensively by
Gronlund (2011, p. 28).
There are different democracy models, each attributing
participation different roles. Adding the “e” to either or both
terms has not made this relation clearer but rather confused it
by adding the technology dimension without much discussion
of the fact that technology is a mallable medium able to serve
many types of participation, including bogus types designed
to, in fact, prohibit real participation. So far, eParticipation
has taken off on a technology track. It has not connected to
government in any clear way. This means measurement on
eParticipation criteria is potentially dangerous as the models
are not validated. (Gronlund, 2011, p. 28)
Summarizing the above considerations, we would say that in
general the communicative aspect of political participation
was stimulated by the internet, yet the connection of
e-participation with “real politics” is still pending. Indeed,
social media offer the possibility of dialogue, interaction,
direct communication, file-sharing, discussion in real time
having a comparative advantage over asynchronous forms
of communication (eg. email). Online polls can also be a
form of maximizing the political impact of online activity.
The question that remains is whether all these forms of
internet-based activity find their equivalent and are taken
into account in official fora where decisions on policy issues
are ultimately made.
2. Forms of e-political participation
The internet offers the possibility of direct communication
between citizens and has expanded the boundaries of the
public sphere while creating multiple public spheres. The
typical networking effect has created online communities
in which citizens can contribute their opinion in discussions.
Moreover, the cost of access to the internet is significantly
lower nowadays and, to some extent, this has helped to
detach electronic participation from economic dependency.
All of these reasons, and the fact that the internet is a huge
deposit of knowledge to which everyone has access, can
lead us to an initial positive assessment of the internet’s
contribution to democratic procedures. Public awareness
and acquiring objective knowledge for political issues
remain crucial prerequisites of effective democratic
political participation. Scholars, however, stress the weak
link between the use of digital media and the increase in
political knowledge (Dimitrova et al., 2014, p. 110).
For the purpose of evaluating the importance and several
aspects of e-participation, we will first proceed with
a brief analysis of the main forms in which it manifests
itself. Possible online actions in which we can recognize
a political incentive are: a) communication by email (to a
person or political party or other organization of political
interest); b) participation in political blogs; c) browsing of
political content websites (websites of politicians, parties,
organisations, etc.); d) participation in online political
discussions; e) participation in online consultations; f)
participation in electronic referendums; g) electronic
applications (e-petitions). Moreover, the convergence
of media technologies introduced a further example:h)
“hybrid” political participation models such as the case of
“internetized television” (see Fortunati, 2005), which is the
combination of television and internet formats.
2
At the institutional level, e-political participation has been
associated with initiatives of “open governance” as a
guarantee of transparency in decision-making (Deligiaouri,
2013). E-consultation and e-deliberation applications such
as the deliberative polling of Fishkin (1991) are conducted
by many organizations in the USA and Europe in order to
enable citizens’ involvement in policymaking. Consultation,
as a participative process, plays a major role in the EU and
it is a key procedure in electronic participation activities
(European Commission, 2009, p. 11, 15).
3
Online platforms and consultation services have been
used for a more citizen-centred lawmaking procedure in
2. A relevant TV broadcast was aired in Greece during the national elections of 2007 called “Skai You Tube Debate” (see relevant Deligiaouri
and Symeonidis, 2010)
3. For a detailed report on initiatives taken by the EU in the field of e-participation, see E. Dalakiouridou et al.(2012).
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
55
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
55
which e-public participation takes place with comments
on draft laws (known as e-rulemaking). Ideally, the Deputy
Minister should evaluate and integrate the results of
public consultation to the final bill. E-rulemaking is one of
the most important applications in the field of electronic
consultation and political participation with the potential
to generate immediate and practical results concerning the
implementation of policies by the State (Schlosberg et al.,
2007, p. 39).
In the next chapter, we examine in more detail several
aspects and factors of political activity and how they are
associated with some kind of political impact or result.
3. The political characteristics,
factors and political stakes
in online participation
The “civic potential” of the internet (Delli Carpini and
Keeter, 2003, p. 129) and, in general, the role of ICTs in
the political procedure is a debatable area of research in
political communication.
Basically there are two approaches to the political use
of the internet: “mobilization theory” and the theory of
“reinforcement” (Norris, 2000). The first theory argues
that internet technologies have created the conditions
for the connection of citizens or groups with politics who
generally were not interested in politics. The second theory,
which approaches the “political potential” of the internet
with reservation, claims that the internet will not change
anything important in the participatory levels of citizens.
Conversely, the internet may reinforce existing inequality
observed among underprivileged sections of the population
(for further analysis for both approaches,see Oser et al.,
2013, p. 91-92).
This distinction is also known in the literature as the utopian
versus the dystopian position. Some scholars underline the
strong influence of the internet on the political activation
of citizens (eg. Norris, 2001) and others argue that the
internet has produced no significant effects in relation to
citizens’ involvement in politics (eg. Bimber, 2001). A more
moderate stance argues that the role of the new media is
complementary to the traditional media (Bimber and Davis,
2003) or that the internet is contributing to the activation
of citizens, but we will have to see to what extent and how
important this contribution is (Boulianne, 2009, p. 205). It
has also been suggested that online political participation
is a distinct form of political participation that is not
directly related either to the theory of mobilization or to
empowerment, but has its own distinctive role and rationale.
We should emphasize that the study of online political
participation is multifactorial. Academic research displays
a number of factors and variables that affect the form, level
and the political impact of e-political participation.
We could classify these factors and variables in three levels:
a) Personal/individual level, which concerns the individual
and individual characteristics (eg. age, education,
economic status, marital status, personality). Personal
variables could include the attitudes of a person towards
politics or the political beliefs of an individual in general.
Zhang et al. (2010, p. 81) add to these variables, political
interest, political efficacy, political trust and identification
(or otherwise) with a political party.
b) Institutional level, which refers mainly to political
institutions and their operation, e.g. operation
of democratic institutions, characteristics of the
democratic system, legislation, party system, electoral
system, “participatory” opportunities of citizens in the
institutions.
c) Social / cultural level, which refers to issues such as:
education system, family, culture, socio-economic status,
the characteristics and the needs of a specific society,
social and economic development level etc.
A more thorough review in recent studies demonstrates
even greater attention to detail regarding the variables
involved. More specifically we can identify:
a) Different forms of political participation (dependent
variables):
1. Web political activity: While the majority of research
in the literature refers to digital media in general,
specialized studies proceed to an important horizontal
segmentation between different forms of use of digital
media and their results (see Dimitrova et al., 2014).
Dimitrova et al. underline that only specific web actions
have sufficient impact on political knowledge and
participation of citizens, such as browsing online news
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
56
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
56
sites and websites of political parties (2014, p. 110).
Holt et al. (2013, p. 30-32) stress the positive impact
on political participation for users who frequently
watch news either on traditional media (TV, etc.) or
in a digital environment.
2. Social media political activity:
i) The different structure and communication process
that takes place in various social media is of particular
significance. It is noted that Facebook is more likely to
distract young users from politics since its function
and structure is different. Research conducted for
the US presidential elections in 2008 for Obama,
where generally there was intense excitement about
the use of social media, does not confirm the overall
impression that Facebook contributed to the political
mobilization of voters. Voters engaged in limited
political activity through Facebook in 2008 elections
(Carlisle and Patton, 2013, p. 891). While Twitter and
Google+ seem to encourage young people to become
active in politics, even in offline forms of political
participation, the use of YouTube, as the first results
show, affects the political mobilisation of users neither
negatively nor positively (Towner 2013, p. 537-538).
We should also underline that, over the last few years,
we have experienced an increased role of Twitter in
political communication.
ii) In relation to younger voters online, “friending”
candidates or political parties may initiate political
participation. In fact, “friending” is associated with
more offline civic engagement than other variables
(Rice, Moffett and Madupalli, 2012)
b) Factors and independent variables affecting online
participation
1. Age is an important factor differentiating the results
in most studies. It has been observed that political
interest and political participation levels increase with
age (Holt et al., 2013, p. 29-30).
2.
Education remains a debatable domain. Young people,
as expected, have better online literacy. Educational
advancement increases political participation.
In particular, post-secondary education seems
to establish a positive causal effect on political
participation (Mayer, 2011).
3. Gerber et al. (2011) analyse the Big Five personality
traits in correlation with political activity (extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,
and openness). Extraversion and emotional stability
are positively associated with political activity and
more specifically with voting (Gerber et al., 2011, p.
703-704). Agreeableness as a character trait leads
to forms of e-political participation in which the user
is not exposed directly but can be anonymous, in
order to avoid confrontation with peers (Quintelier
and Theocharis, 2013, p. 286). In the latter case,
therefore, it is most likely for the citizen-user to avoid
involvement in political debates and controversies in
a circle where he is recognizable.
4. The role of the family and other political socialization
agents may have a greater or lesser impact on
the formation of a political participation attitude
especially during adulthood. Quintelier analyses these
factors and underlines the effect of family discussions,
peers and voluntary associations in increasing and
stimulating the levels of political participation (2015,
p. 65).
5. The so-called digital divide continues to affect online
political participation (Norris, 2001; Sreberny, 2009).
Social inequalities have their “digital” equivalent
(Deligiaouri, 2011) or, in other words, they can be
reproduced digitally (Hargittai 2008 as cited in Morris
and Morris, 2013, p. 595). Socio-economic status
and level of educational attainment matter in youth
engagement in politics as well (Sloam, 2014, p. 677-
681). Online political participation remains stratified
by socio-economic status and has not changed much
the inequality patterns existing in offline politics
(Schlozman et al., 2010). Research reveals that the
higher socio-economic classes are more likely to
develop political participation activities than less
privileged ones and, as a result, governments seem to
respond more readily to the demands of the privileged
classes (Gilens, 2005, p. 793-794). On the other hand,
access to the internet can reduce the gap in political
knowledge and consequently increase participation
levels between privileged and underprivileged social
classes (Morris and Morris, 2013, p. 597-598). Studies
demonstrate that: a) access to the internet can work
towards balancing discrimination at a socio-economic
level;b) social contexts that are information-rich
and allow a good flow of information between their
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
57
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
57
members may reduce the lack of political knowledge
usually found in social groups with a low level of
education (Fraile, 2013, p. 119, 138).
c) Organizational settings of media and communicative
codes
1. Reservations are voiced concerning the role of the
administrator in the management of an electronic
platform. Actions such as the removal of comments
and agenda setting of topics for discussion, seem
to affect to some extent at least, the process of
online political participation. Features similar to the
communicative model of the gatekeeper have been
observed by scholars (as mentioned in Crivellaro et al.,
2014) suggesting that, in the aforementioned cases,
the “openness” of electronic participation may be in
danger.
2. The functionality of a specific social media platform
and the possibility of providing a multimodal discourse
with various forms of expression has proven to be a
decisive factor. Crivellaro et al., (2014) in their research
on Facebook indicate that multimodal discourse offered
by Facebook and the ability to communicate in many
ways (photos, hyperlinks, text) allows the creation of
a diverse cultural environment of expression wherein
speech articulation may occur in different ways. In this
way, participation is enhanced because of the various
ways that can be employed by individuals in order to
express themselves.
In relation to the consequences of online participation we
may discuss the following points
1. The wealth of information found in communication
avenues should not lead to the erroneous conclusion
that the amount of information is in direct proportion to
its quality or that the plurality of available information
results in a deep and comprehensive knowledge
of things. Networking and the easy exchange of
views on the internet should not be considered as a
necessary factor contributing to pluralism nor does it
always entail diversity and a multifaceted treatment
of issues. Online communities are characterized
by fragmentation and instability (Deligiaouri, 2011).
Moreover, the propensity of internet users is to discuss
with like-minded users, to form groups of common
interest and be exposed to content that is compatible
with their own opinion (Sunstein, 2001). Once again
the theory of “selective exposure” to media content
is confirmed.
2. Regarding online discussions it is important if they
take place between people who know each other
(“strong-tie network”) or between people with loose
coupling (“weak-tie network”).
4
The participants in
discussions in weak-tie networks are exposed to a
variety of information from people who they probably
do not know. This lack of intimacy is a feature that
enhances their electronic participation (Valenzuela et
al., 2012, p. 176-177), probably because they feel more
comfortable talking to people they are not related to. On
the other hand, agreement rather than disagreement
affects significantly online political participation
which confirms the strength of discussion networks
among the like-minded (Valenzuela et al., 2012, p.
177). However, this fact weakens the characteristics
of heterogeneity and diversity which are considered
a positive asset for a political discussion
3. The difference between political activity and political
participation in the aforementioned sense is evident in
studies. Hence, while people that comment on online
articles with political content show greater interest
in the political events, it is possible that, in the end,
they will prefer not to go and vote (Kruikemeier et al.
2013, p. 12, 13).
4.
Political mobilisation and political involvement online
are factors which indicate political interest (Carlisle
and Patton, 2013, p. 891).Conversely, citizens who
are already active and politically motivated are more
likely to be engaged in e-participation activities in
comparison to citizens who are not politically active
(Deligiaouri and Symeonidis, 2010).
5. The study by Oser et al. demonstrates that there
are groups of citizens who prefer electronic forms
of political participation without necessarily having
the same willingness to participate in offline politics
(2013, p. 98-99). Thus our earlier argument for online
4. For a brief analysis of the two types of networks, seeValenzuela et al., 2012, p. 167-168).
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
58
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
58
participation being a “distinct type of participation”
seems to be supported to some extent. This is
mainly the case with young people who have a loose
connection with “traditional” politics (eg. political
parties). Young people usually engage in alternative
forms of political activity (eg. protest politics either
online or offline) as they tend to prefer non-electoral
forms of political participation.
The above analysis based on the discussion of recent studies
reveals some important variables and factors which influence
online political participation. It is evident that, due to the
multivariable nature of e-participation, studies in the field are
becoming increasingly detailed. What is also obvious from
the study of the results is that, in many cases, the conclusions
remain conflicting and ambivalent. Thus, any analysis of
e-participation should maintain a sceptical approach.
Conclusions
E-politics inaugurated a new era in democracy. In particular,
social media have revealed new ways of communication,
socialisation and participation in the political process.
Digital democracy was associated with initiatives of open
governance and direct democracy in an attempt to re-
establish the role of the citizen in decision making and
consequently redefine the relationship between the state
and its citizens.
The initial euphoria about the political stakes of the internet
and its democratic potential seems not to have been verified
by the studies, at least to the expected degree. Broad
scepticism is observed in academic research regarding
the impact of online political activities on actual political
procedures and, most importantly,on the decision-making
process. The comparative analysis of recent studies
conducted in this article highlights a large number of
variables and factors that should be taken into account
when analysing the political proponents of online activity.
The importance in drawing the lines between participation
in social media and participation through social media was
evident in the studies quoted.
Our analysis also identified the different rationale, intention
and possible political impact of different forms of electronic
political participation. Respectively, the logic and the
structure of online platforms create a different context and
potential for users, which can have a mobilisation effect or
produce no effect at all.
The age, educational level, personality, socio-economic
status of users remain crucial variables as they are in offline
political participation. Of particular interest are the research
results for young people who constitute the main body of
internet users. The advanced online literacy of young people
and the increased time spent in front of a computer screen
does not always translate into their political participation.
Instead, users of all ages who are already interested in
politics find in internet technologies an alternative way to
participate in politics.
In conclusion, we could argue that when analysing
e-participation several factors should be analysed thoroughly
and in detail in order to reach justified conclusions.
The conclusions of this study are certainly not generalizable
as, for our analysis, we have drawn inferences from a selection
of papers published in the field. Even though our findings
are not generalizable, they indicate that causality between
online activities and political results remains controversial
and loose. As such, academic research still addresses with
considerable caution the political potential of the internet
noting, however, its positive contribution in several aspects.
References
ARNSTEIN, S. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 216-224.
BIMBER, B. (2001). “Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information
technology at the individual level”. Political Research Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 53-67.
BIMBER, B. A.; DAVIS, R. (2003). Campaigning online: The internet in U.S. elections. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
BOULIANNE, S. (2009). “Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research”, Political
Communication, no. 26, pp. 193–211.
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
59
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
59
CARLISLE, J.; PATTON, C. (2013). “Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political Engagement?
An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election”, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 66,
no. 4, pp. 883–895. dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912913482758>
CARPENTIER, N. (2009). “Participation is not enough: The conditions of possibility of mediated
participatory practices”, European Journal of Communication, no. 24, pp. 407-420.
org/10.1177/0267323109345682>
CRIVELLARO, C.; COMBER, R.; BOWERS, J. [et al.] (2014). “A Pool of Dreams: Facebook, Politics
and the Emergence of a Social Movement”, CHI 2014, April 26 - May 01 2014.
org/10.1145/2556288.2557100>
DALAKIOURIDOU, E.; SMITH, S.; TAMBOURIS, T. [et al.] (2012). “Electronic Participation Policies and
Initiatives in the European Union Institutions”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 30, no. 3, pp.
297-323. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439311413436>
DELIGIAOURI, A. (2014). “Conceptualizations, Forms and Factors which influence on line political
participation”, Communication Issues (Zitimata Epikoinonias), vol. 18/19, pp. 19-33, University Research
Institute of Applied Communication, Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, National and
Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece (in Greek)..
DELIGIAOURI, A. (2013). “Open Governance and E-Rulemaking. On line Deliberation and Policy in
Contemporary Greek Politics” (2013), Journal of Information Technology and Politics, vol. 10, no 1, p.
104-124. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.746109>
DELIGIAOURI, A. (2011). “Public (Online) Deliberation and the Formation of Modern State Policies”. In:
K. Zoras, A. Panagiotarea, D. Potamianos, M. Spourdalakis (eds) (2011). Democracy and Mass Media,
Onassis Foundation, Livanis publications, Athens, 147-162. (in Greek)
DELIGIAOURI, A.; SYMEONIDIS P. (2010). “TV-YouTube Debate: A New Era of Internetized Television
Politics?”, International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP), vol 1:2, pp. 46-64, IGI Global, April-June 2010.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2009). “Citizens speak out: A louder call for European e-participation”,
Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2009, pages 24.
dx.doi.org/ 10.2759/35404>
GERBER, A.; HUBER, G.; DOHERTY, D. [et al.] (2011). “Personality Traits and Participation in Political
Processes”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 73, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 692–706.
DELLI CARPINI, M. X. KEETER, S. (2003). “The Internet and an Informed Citizenry”. In: D. Anderson, M.
Cornfield (Eds.) The Civic Web: Online Politics and Democratic Values, pp. 129-153, Lanham, Boulder,
New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
DIMITROVA, D.; SHEHATA, A.; STRÖMBÄCK [et al.] (2014). “The Effects of Digital Media on Political
Knowledge and Participation in Election Campaigns: Evidence from Panel Data”, Communication
Research 2014, 41: 95.
FISHKIN, J. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation. New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
FORTUNATI, L. (2005). “Mediatization of the Net and Internetization of the Mass Media”, Gazette: The
International Journal for Communication Studies, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 27-44, Sage Publications.
FRAILE, M. (2013). “Do information-rich contexts reduce knowledge inequalities? The contextual
determinants of political knowledge in Europe”, Acta Politica no. 48, pp. 119–143. <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1057/ap.2012.34>
GILENS, M. (2005). “Inequality and democratic responsiveness”, Public Opinion Quarterly, no. 69, pp.
778–796.
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
60
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
60
GRONLUND, A. (2011). “Connecting e-Government to Real Government – The Failure of the UN
e-Participation Index’-. In: M. Janssen et al. (Eds.): EGOV 2011, LNCS 6846, pp. 26–37.
HARGITTAI, E. (2008). “The digital reproduction of inequality. In: D. Grusky (Ed.). Social stratification,
pp. 936–944, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
HOLT, K.; SHEHATA, A.; STRÖMBÄCK, J. [et al.] (2013). “Age and the effects of news media attention and
social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller?”, European
Journal of Communication, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 19–34.
available at http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/28/1/19>
JENKINS, H.; CARPENTIER, N. (2013). “Theorizing participatory intensities: A conversation about
participation and politics”, Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 265-286.
KRUIKEMEIER, S.; VAN NOORT, G.; VLIEGENTHART, R. [et al.] (2013). “Unravelling the effects of active
and passive forms of political internet use: Does it affect citizens’ political involvement?”. [online]
New Media & Society. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495163>,
early/2013/07/09/1461444813495163>
MACINTOSH, A. (2004). “Characterizing E-Participation in Policymaking”, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences – 2004, pp. 1-10.
MARIEN, S.; HOOGHE, M.; QUINTELIER, E. (2010). “Inequalities in Non-Institutionalized Forms of
Political Participation. A Multilevel Analysis for 25 Countries”, Political Studies, vol. 58, no. 1, pp.
187-213, [Accessed: 25/11/2015] .kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/206523/2/24420-
PoliticalStudies-58.pdf>
MAYER, A. (2011). “Does Education Increase Political Participation?”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 73, no.
3, July 2011, pp. 633–645. dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100034X>
MORRIS, D.S.; MORRIS, G.S. (2013). “Digital Inequality and Participation in the Political Process: Real
or Imagined?”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 31, no.5, pp. 589-600.
10.1177/0894439313489259>
NORRIS, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet worldwide.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
NORRIS, P. (2000). A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
OSER, J.; HOOGHE, M.; MARIEN, S. (2013). “Is Online Participation Distinct from Offline Participation?
A Latent Class Analysis of Participation Types and Their Stratification”, Political Research Quarterly
2013, vol 66, no. 1, pp. 91-101.
QUINTELIER, E. (2015). “Engaging Adolescents in Politics: The Longitudinal Effect of Political Socialization
Agents”, Youth & Society, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 51–69.
QUINTELIER, E.; THEOCHARIS, Y. (2013). “Online Political Engagement, Facebook, and Personality Traits”,
Social Science Computer Review, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 280-290. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439312462802>
QUINTELIER, E.; VISSERS, S. (2008). “The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation. An Analysis
of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 26, no. 4, pp.
411-427. dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439307312631>
RICE, L.; MOFFETT, K.; MADUPALLI, R. (2012). “Campaign-Related Social Networking and the Political
Participation of College Students”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 257-279.
dx.doi.org/: 10.1177/0894439312455474>
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
61
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
61
SCHLOSBERG, D.; ZAVESTOSKI, St.; SHULMAN, St. (2007). “Democracy and E-Rulemaking. Web-based
technologies, Participation and the Potential for Deliberation”, Journal of Information Technology
and Politics, vol. 4, no, 1, pp. 37-55.
SCHLOZMAN, K.; VERBA, S.; BRADY, H. (2010). “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and
the Internet”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, no. 2 (June 2010), pp. 487-509. www.jstor.org/
stable/25698614>
SLOAM, J. (2014). “New Voice, Less Equal: The Civic and Political Engagement of Young People in the
United States and Europe”, Comparative Political Studies vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 663–688.
org/ 10.1177/0010414012453441>
SREBERNY, A. (2009). “Maps and Mandalas, division and Multiplication”. In: U. Carlsson (ed. 2009).
Media and Global Divides, Nordicom Review, vol. 30, Jubilee issue, June 2009, pp. 39-56.
SUNSTEIN, C- (2001). Republic.com. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
TOWNER, T. (2013). “All Political Participation Is Socially Networked?: New Media and the 2012 Election”,
Social Science Computer Review, no.31, pp. 527-541.
VALENZUELA, S.; KIM, Y.; GIL de ZUNIGA, H. (2012). “Social Networks that Matter: Exploring the Role
of Political Discussion for Online Political Participation”, International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 163-184.
ZHANG, W.; JOHNSON, Th. J.; SELTZER, T [et al.] (2010). “The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence
of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behaviour”. Social Science Computer Review,
volume 28, no. 1, pp. 75-92. doi.org/10.1177/0894439309335162>
Recommended citation
DELIGIAOURI, Anastasia (2015). “A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables of
democratic e-participation with a focus on social media”. IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política.
No. 21, pp.50-62. UOC [Accessed: dd/mm/yy]
The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0 Spain licence. They may be copied, distributed
and broadcast provided that the author, the journal and the institution that publishes
them (IDP Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política; UOC)are cited. Derivative works are not
permitted. The full licence can be consulted onhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nd/3.0/es/deed.en.
IDP no. 21 (December 2015) I ISSN 1699-8154 Journal promoted by the Law and Political Science Department
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Jose R. Agustina
www.uoc.edu/idp
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
62
A critical appraisal of forms, features, factors and variables...
Eloi PuigEloi Puig
Anastasia Deligiaouri
62
About the author
Anastasia Deligiaouri
a.deligiaouri@kastoria.teikoz.gr
Anastasia Deligiaouri
Adjunct Senior Lecturer
Technological Educational Institute of Western Macedonia, Greece
TEI of Western Macedonia
Department of Digital Media and Comunication
Kastoria Campus
Fourka Area
PO Box 30
521 00 Kastoria
Greece
