What does online participation mean in politics?

A common definition for „participation“, widely applied in this field, speaks of „actions designed to influence, or to impact directly or indirectly on, politics“ (Verba et al., 1995). Numerous definitions state that actions within political participation are always based on an underlying intention to bring about, or change, political decisions. Nevertheless, an astonishingly large number of the studies reviewed fail to include any explicit definition of what participation means. It is quite common for political and civic engagement to be examined together. Hence, some definitions of participation are broader and also include actions that do not refer to politics, among them volunteer work and neighbourhood organisations: „Civic engagement refers to citizens‘ individual and collective involvement in public affairs“ (Park & Perry, 2008).

In many cases the mere act of seeking political information – e.g., googling government information – is viewed as a form of participation (di Gennaro & Dutton, 2006). Online participation in politics covers a broad spectrum of other activities, also. They extend from actions known equally in the offline world – signing petitions or casting votes – to activities only possible on the Net, such as writing blogs. Activities that are analysed most frequently include: searching for or reading political information, donating, contacting political institutions or even establishing contacts there, conversations on political topics, participation in political events, sharing photos, videos or audio files, protests and boycotts, also polls (Best & Krueger, 2005; Calenda & Meyer, 2009; Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez, 2011; di Gennaro & Dutton, 2006; de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Emmer et al., 2012; Hoff, 2006; Hoffman, 2012; Jugert et al., 2013; Kahneet al., 2012; Kaufhold et al., 2010; Kavanaugh et al., 2008; Krueger, 2002; Livingstone et al., 2005; Oostven & Besselaar, 2004; Oser, Hooghe & Marien, 2012; Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009; Vissers et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2003).

The different forms of participation in politics exhibit varying degrees of institutionalisation. More traditional, strongly institutionalised forms are frequently less elaborate and drain fewer resources than more recent, less institutionalised forms. Additionally, offline participation differs from online participation in several areas. Offline participation (above all in established democracies) encompasses a defined number of options, among them voting, becoming involved with a party, signing petitions, striking or taking part in protest marches. In comparison, participation on the Internet has decidedly nebulous outlines and is also in a state of constant change. The boundaries here lack clear definition.

The literature analysed reveals that the last five years have seen a strong focus on political participation in social media. Increasing numbers of studies examine the users‘ political activities on social media or in blogs (Conroy et al., 2012; de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Macafee & De Simone, 2012; Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009; Zavestoski et al., 2011). This goes hand in hand with a debate on which activities can indeed be considered forms of participation – or are no more than signs of „slacktivism“, i.e., symbolic participation (Ritzi et al., 2012). Critical voices claim that merely clicking on a „like“ on Facebook does not represent any actual participation and serves only to ease one’s conscience or – even worse – as a form of self-presentation (Morozov, 2011).

Online campaign "Kony 2012" of the NGO Invisible Children

Example 1: In 2012, the sophisticated online campaign launched by the NGO „Invisible Children“ encouraging the arrest of the warlord and war criminal Joseph Kony achieved a hitherto unseen degree of viral dissemination in social media. At the same time it was criticised for its ineffectiveness and purely symbolic character.

The small number of empirical studies that look into this question paint quite a varied picture. Vitak et al. (2011) show that low-level forms of participation such as „liking“ content on Facebook or political status updates were not just commonplace among students at an US-American University, but that they also indicated manifestations of offline participation involving substantially greater resources such as engagement with a political organisation. Conroy et al. (2012) arrive at similar conclusions. They analysed membership of political organisations on the Internet and how this reflected on participation beyond the Net; their data also indicated a positive correlation.

Political engagement in social media

Example 2: Comparatively speaking, political engagement is quite rare in social media. Greenpeace, one of the world’s best-known political organisations, has 1.4 million Faebook „likes“, while the restaurant chain McDonald’s has almost 30 million.

A substantial number of studies in this area of literature focus on activities among young users (Bakker & de Vreese, 2011; Bennett et al., 2011; Bridges et al. 2012; Burwell, 2010; Calenda & Meijer, 2009; Collin, 2008; Dahlgren, 2011; Kann et al., 2007; Kaun & Guyard, 2011; Lariscy et al., 2011; Livingstone, 2008; Spaiser, 2012; Vromen, 2008). Frequently they take in debates on political disillusionment or ignorance on the part of the adolescents and young adults, analysing whether the Internet can indeed produce an activating effect among this population group.