norwegian parties and web 2.0: alpha-testing without a sandbox?

8/14/2019 Norwegian Parties and Web 2.0: Alpha-testing without a sandbox?

1/31

Norwegian Parties and Web 2.0: Norwegian Parties and Web 2.0: Alpha-testing without a sandbox? Alpha-testing without a sandbox?

Presentation for Politics: Web 2.0: AnInternational Conference

Royal Holloway, University of London, April 17.-18., 2008

yvind Kalnes,Lillehammer University College,

2626 Lillehammer, NORWAY


2/31

How did Norwegian political partieshandle the appearance of Web 2.0? ( alpha-testing..)

Focusing on the campaign for the local elections Sept.2007(without a sandbox!)

All seven parliamentary parties, plus four non-parliamentary parties (11 in all)

Samples from activity in blogosphere, on Facebook andYouTube

Semi-structured interviews with party informants

Variations in party strategies towards Web 2.0?Whether the use of Web 2.0 might:

Enhance participatory democracy by lowering the thresholdfor involvement of party grassroots and sympathisers?

Enhance the competitive aspects of democracy by increasingthe visibility of parties that attract little attention from themass media and lack the resources to advertise?


3/31

POLITICAL CONTEXT

Parliamentary andlocal elections

alternating everysecond year

Electoral systemProportional

representationMultimemberconstituencies

Vote for party lists

Multiparty system (5-30% of votes)2 right wing (Conservatives and Progress)

3 center (Center, Liberals, Christian Democrats)2 left wing (Labour, Socialist Left)

Shifting minoritygovernments, mostlyLabour or Centre-Right coalitions

Local assemblies

since 1848

Parliamentary democracyca. 1900

Unitary state (i.e.non-federal)

Political advertisingon TV is illegal


4/31

Web 2.0 Two models of democracyPluralist (or competitive) democracy: Provide

meaningful political alternatives for voters infree elections held at regular intervals (JosephSchumpeter)

Unilateral communication:

Web 2.0 as levelling the field of the political game?

Participative (or discourse) democracy: Providemeans for involvement in the public discussionand formulation of policies. (Jrgen Habermas)

Multilateral communication:

Web 2.0 as more open for participation?


5/31

But.I have little or no interest in politics

Source: European Social Survey


6/31

Weaker party loyalty


7/31

Top 25 Web sitesOctober 2007

MySpace25.

Blogger.com21.

Biip.no19.

Piczo.com17.Wikipedia13.

Nettby.no04

YouTube03

Facebook01Web siteRank

21597783662007

04213438272000

67-7945-6625-4416-24All

Age groups (%)Used internet on a daily basis

2007: E-Readiness

. and Web 2.0 readiness?


8/31

Web 1.0. Party web sitesInformantsSatisfied with party leadership priority of internet, but Internet is not regarded as changing the party, only making it

more effective and professional

Open discussion forums in the past, but closed due to lowquality of discussion. Need constant monitoring /moderating / avoid public shame.

Few opportunities for individual politicians to participate Local and district party branches supported and integrated

on the web, but symbolic top-down initiative more thanvitalization of party grassroot

Convergence around unilateralism

The average net surfer do not use the internet for political purposes


9/31

00.2Democrats

17.5Progress Party

19.3Conservative Party

Right

00.9Pensioners' Party

00.2Coast Party

05.9Liberal Party

06.4Christian People's Party

08.0Centre Party

Centre:

29.6Labour Party

00.3Environmental Party

06.2Socialist Left Party

01.9Red Electoral Alliance

VotesLeft:Activities of the political parties as

organizations on Web 2.0:

Links from the official party web sites tosites

Scan of the Web 2.0 sites in the Norwegian top 100 for party names, inabbreviated and full form

Party informants (not that well informed!)

Facebook and YouTube most relevantsites to study, plus ..Survey of the ambitious attempts of

Norwegian newspaper VG to establishcommon forums for blogging at VG-blog


10/31

Web 2.0 as challenge to parties Lacked clear strategy on Web 2.0, due to

Sceptisism (media hype) Lack of extra resources (Web 1.0 priority) Happened quickly

But rush of grassroot initiatives to use Web 2.0 during

a few months in spring 2007

a nightmare It will pass.. People dont go there for the politics.. new places appear every day, using our name and

even our logo. A lot of the people behind this are probably (party) members with good intentions, butthe result is that we have no control.


11/31

1. The Blogosphere A demanding genre, fear of media

stigma as blog flops Personal and private nature Opportunities elsewhere outside the

party web site

hesitant or negative parties, no coherentstrategy, blog technology notimplemented on party web sites (oneexception; the Liberals)Some top politicians blogs scatteredaround the internet, but only one partyleader blogged on a permanent basis(Erna Solberg, leader of theConservatives)


12/31

A different typeof channel

I think blogging is a good opportunity to communicatewith people and get responses from all camps. It is a verynice way to express and test opinions in a simple and less

formal manner. It is less formal than for instance gothrough the newspapers ... Usually it is the last thing I dobefore I go to bed ... Its themes are politics, Brann and theworld.

(Heikki Holms a leading young Social Left Party parliamentarian).


13/31

Organizations in an individual sphere

Harvesting strategies, through highly visiblelinking to successful blogs Took on a quasi-institutional and ad-hoc

character, as the parties were pushed to take part in temporary blogging foras set up by themedia.

A special election blog section in the webedition of the leading newspaper VG for partyleaders, as well as local candidates and

branches High (unrealistic) ambitions


14/31

A party leder on VG blogg


15/31

VG Blog Activity during last five weeksbefore elections on party leader's blog

17,5224,912,9Average

19,119110Red ElectoralAlliance

2,01005Centre Party

20,128114Christian People'sParty

20,338519Liberals19,017109Labour Party

25,360824Socialist Left Party8,003204Progress Party6,712118Conservatives

RATIOCOMMENTS*POSTINGSPARTY


16/31

2. Facebook

Since January 2007 grew at an average of 250000 new registrations per day, reaching the 20million mark in April 2007 and 67 milliontoday (more now?)

Unique popularity in Norway, a population of 4.5 million but is a global number 8, in terms of active users.

Norwegian parties caught off guard


17/31

Challenges for Norwegian politics on Facebook

Commercial (advertising, user information) Networking site for individual users Parties had to establish themselves as groups More for the American than the Norwegian

political landscape? (language, political viewsin 2007..)

Unofficial party groups, appearing to be the

genuine article


18/31

Grassroot steals the initiative(and the party identity)

Top politicians had no profiles on Facebook, butlots of local candidates and party officers

Several groups for the national partyorganizations (minus Pensioners party), but only2 (Labour and Conservatives) genuine from thestart and one more (Centre Party) validatedthrough link from party web site

Some semi-official national groups recognized by (but not authorized) party, and lots of unofficial

Stealing the party identity


19/31

Stealing the party identity


20/31

Local (Labour) on Facebook

Open fractionalism on Facebook


21/31

Open fractionalism on Facebook


22/31

Most significant national party groupsestablished on Facebook 2007

50May 7thDemocrats

532April 6thRed Electoral Alliance2209March 21stProgress Party

Unofficial groups

32May 20thCoast Party

138April 25thChristian People's Party

461May 10thLiberals453April 12thSocialist Left Party

Semi-official groups

324April 9thCentre Party

836 June 4thLabour Party

732May 23rdConservativesOfficial groups

MembersEstablishedParty

The ProgressParty group,largest and no

party candidatesor -officersinvolved


23/31

Overheard in one of the party groups

First contributor: To everyone as unattentive asmyself, who has joined the Facebook-group ; this is not serious. Get out (not from this

group - but the "fake" one). Second contributor: The other -

group almost appeared a bit sick... Third contributor: I think it's better to talk with

people rather than just run. Of course problematicthat anyone can establish Facebook-groups and appear to be established by , but they do not seem to have any bad intensions. ..


24/31

3.

To upload videos and establish a "Channel", a personaluser account is necessary, although not a public

personal profile Breakthrough of YouTube at the same time as the start

of the campaign ( no 3 in Norway) Regarded by parties as hype, (like Facebook) Five of the national parties in the sample decided to

use the opportunity to established channels onYouTube before the election.


25/31

Norwegian national party channels on YouTube in 2007

1583810 July 9thRed ElectoralAlliance

38588April25th

Centre Party

171827114April11th

Liberals

1787675110April14th

Labour Party

128626April26th

Conservatives

SUBS-CRIBERSVIEWSVIDEOSJOINEDPARTY


26/31

Plus a number of channelsestablished by local parties andlocal activists.

But less chaotic than Facebook and often embedded on party website, although party name is not

protected for channels. Liberalsname already taken, and have touse another name. Conservativesestablish channel to secure thename.

Established WebTV by 2005 prefer this to YouTube


27/31

A (very) preliminary discussion

Web 2.0 in a hype cycle now, like Web 1.0 before 2001 (dot com bubble)? Will not deliver as expected?

Less political activity Irrational (uncontrollable) element for parties Whose expectations?

Isomorphism No standards yet, but might

explain flock mentality

Web technology and the hype Cycle


28/31

Web technology and the hype Cycle


29/31

Parties are institutionsType of approach to Web 2.0

Embody norms and values, established routines andrelations, which may make them more or less resistantto any change or reform

Web 2.0 as individualist, non-hierarchical networkingmay have a variable fit for various parties

Norwegian parties still mass parties, especiallyLabour, Christian Peoples Pary and Centre Party

New Politics Parties (especially left-libertarian) more

individual, open and non-hierarchical. Archetype:Socialis Left Party, besides Red Electoral Alliance andVenstre


30/31

Party resources Volume of the activity on Web 2.0,

Web 2.0 a new field of activity on top of eveythingelse. Demands new resources or new priorities Norwegian parties relatively well off, due to generous

government grants according to electoral success. But stillhas to prioritize

Small parties without representatives fall below threshold Party organization resources:

Financial, expertise and staff Members and activists who contribute without salary Number of members/activists tend to correlate with votes,

which size of grants


31/31

Most active parties

Labour Party a mass party with muchresources an active institutional approach toWeb 2.0

norwegian parties and web 2.0: alpha-testing without a sandbox?

Documents