Abstract
Scholars have examined how political parties cope with web-based technologies for about 20 years. This body of literature on party digitalisation covers many different aspects of parties’ migration into the digital, yet usually, the term digitalisation is used equally for all kinds of web-related changes in party behaviour and routines. This contribution distinguishes five key dimensions (pillars) of parties’ migration into the digital, which resonate with classic approaches of party research. These pillars cover (A) membership, (B) leaders and candidates, (C) policy program, (D) public image, and (E) resources. Each pillar consists of three bricks addressing sub-dimensions. This enables a matrix-like utilisation and helps clarifying different fields in online party research. In addition, a thorough literature review (meta-analysis) of current research on parties’ migration into the digital is provided to verify the usefulness of the Five-Pillar Model. Most importantly, this procedure made current trends and current gaps within the field of research visible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term ‘the digital’ was identified as common ground in a debate within the steering committee of the ECPR Standing Group on Internet and Politics. It opens the field not only to online-related aspects of organisational and communicational change, but also a wide range of elements transferred from an analog phenomenon into digital equivalents without imposing the necessity of an (online-based) connection. It, therefore, conceptualises a counter sphere as an equivalent to the palpable sphere. Many thanks to Tim Büthe for pointing out this lack of clarity.
- 2.
For an overview, see Farrell (2006).
- 3.
Following Scheuch’s (1999) distinction, goals can be differentiated in visions, milestones and resource collection (translation JF). For political parties, goals were differentiated by Strom (1990). Policy-seeking can be viewed as part of the mission, office-seeking a milestone, and vote-seeking as a form of resource allocation.
- 4.
The term ‘cultural demand’ tries to avoid the assumption that societies adopt online possibilities at different speeds. Privacy awareness and transparency, for example, have a different salience in different countries, especially when one is considered to come at the stake of the other.
- 5.
- 6.
One might think of echo chambers or filter bubbles here. However, especially when it comes to political attitudes and party adherence, there were always echo chambers and filter bubbles in place—we just used to call them homogenous environments (Lazarsfeld et al., 1948) or milieu (e.g. Andersen & Heath, 2002; Mochmann & El-Menouar, 2005).
- 7.
Downs specifies ‘legal means’ as ‘gaining office in a duly constituted election’ (1957, p. 25).
- 8.
This question points to the self-concept of a party: is the vision of an ideal society the driving force of political work or the maintaining of political offices? This self-concept was recently linked to the survival or death of political parties by Bolleyer and colleagues (2019).
- 9.
For the US case, Valentino and colleagues (2018), provide evidence that strong rhetoric concerning racial hostility is no longer rejected by many respondents. Additionally, in their analysis on the US Presidential Election 2016, Hooghe and Dassonneville (2018) conclude that Trump’s rhetoric (especially on his stance on immigrants) did affect vote choice.
- 10.
Many (larger) parties find themselves regarded as interchangeable, without a clear profile. Adherents even of parties from the same area of the political spectrum, however, do find differences when it comes to shared values or important moments that formed a party’s identity (Fitzpatrick & Mayer, 2019). Bringing them in for programme formation integrates members (Ab) and may enhance the party’s profile. The influence of members and adherents during the process of creating a policy programme can be fostered by the employment of web-based technologies. While the integration of many members (Ab) into the process is probably time-consuming and difficult, it can create more support for policy decisions.
- 11.
This last aspect stresses that competition is a good thing in pluralistic societies. Some political forces use ICTs to facilitate opinions that oppose the very core of liberal democracy. This topic leads to a different direction of research and will not be addressed in this contribution. For further information, see, for example Krämer (2017).
- 12.
Information published by the party itself is obviously not neutral. Yet, it helps us to understand how a party wants to be perceived. Websites are predominantly under the influence of the website owner; social media profiles and information distributed through them, however, underlie the opaque algorithms in the hands of providers.
- 13.
Again the style of how criticism is articulated is important. However, an appropriate, polite response can be expected by interested citizens.
- 14.
I reviewed the literature in German and English. In addition, I consulted with colleagues from other national contexts. If there were contributions for the bricks (Bc) and (Cc), I believe that either they would have come up in my research or the literature I viewed would have referred to these contributions. I especially thank the editors of this volume for their support in this regard.
- 15.
For the offline sphere, it seems that governments are held accountable rather than party leaders and candidates. The focus is usually on the winners of an election, not the losers, which partly explains the research gap. In addition, for parliamentary systems, the chain of accountability is complex (Strom, 2000), which makes it difficult to analyse.
- 16.
Yet, they point out that the experience is disappointing because individuals often do not consider themselves tied to the same social norms online and offline (Ward et al., 2003, p. 656).
References
Andersen, R., & Heath, A. (2002). Class matters: The persisting effects of contextual social class on individual voting in Britain, 1964–97. European Sociological Review, 18(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/18.2.125
Anstead, N., & Chadwick, A. (2008). Lessons of the US digital campaign. Renewal: a Journal of Labour Politics, 16(3/4), 103–110.
Berson, Y., Waldman, D. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2016). Enhancing our understanding of vision in organisations: Toward an integration of leader and follower processes. Organisational Psychology Review, 6(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615583736
Bolleyer, N., Ibenskas, R., & Bischoff, C. (2019). Perspectives on political party death: Theorizing and testing Downsian and sociological rationales. European Political Science Review, 11(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773918000176
Braun, D., & Schwarzbözl, T. (2018). Put in the spotlight or largely ignored? Emphasis on the Spitzenkandidaten by political parties in their online campaigns for European elections. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(3), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1454493
Ceron, A. (2017). Intra-party politics in 140 characters. Party Politics, 23(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816654325
Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organisational hybridity. Political Communication, 24(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600701471666
Cross, W., & Gauja, A. (2014). Evolving membership strategies in Australian political parties. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 611–625.
Daalder, H. (2002). Parties: denied, dismissed, or redundant? A critique. In R. Gunther, J. Ramón-Montero, & J. J. Linz (Eds), Political parties: Old concepts and new challenges (pp. 39–57). Oxford University Press.
Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation. New Media & Society, 12(5), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341435
Dommett, K., Fitzpatrick, J., Mosca, L., & Gerbaudo, P. (2020a). Are digital parties the future of party organization? A symposium on the digital party: political organisation and online democracy by Paolo Gerbaudo. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2020.13
Dommett, K., Temple, L., & Seyd, P. (2020b). Dynamics of intra-party organisation in the digital age: a grassroots analysis of digital adoption. Parliamentary Affairs. Online first, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaa007
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Prentice Hall.
Elter, A. (2013). Interaktion und dialog? Eine quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Aktivitäten deutscher Parteien bei Twitter und Facebook während der Landtagswahlkämpfe 2011. Publizistik, 58(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-013-0173-1
Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication & Society, 16(5), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330
Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802
Evans, H. K., & Clark, J. H. (2016). ‘You tweet like a girl!’ How female candidates campaign on Twitter. American Politics Research, 44(2), 326–352.
Fitzpatrick, J., & Mayer S. J. (2019). The common grounds of adherence? A qualitative analysis of young partisans’ collective identity. In M. Steinbrecher, E. Bytzek, & U. Rosar (Eds.), Identität - Identifikation - Ideologie (pp. 113–139). Springer VS.
Farrell, D. M. (2006). Political parties in a changing campaign environment. In R. S. Katz & W. Cotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics (pp. 122–133). Sage.
Gerbaudo, P. (2019). The digital party: Political organisation and online democracy. Pluto Press.
Gibson, R. K. (2015). Party change, social media and the rise of ‘citizen-initiated’campaigning. Party Politics, 21(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068812472575
Gibson, R., Greffet, F., & Cantijoch, M. (2017). Friend or foe? Digital technologies and the changing nature of party membership. Political Communication, 34(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1221011
Gomez, R., & Ramiro, L. (2019). The limits of organisational innovation and multi-speed membership: Podemos and its new forms of party membership. Party Politics, 25(4), 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817742844
Hartleb, F. (2013). Anti-elitist cyber parties? Journal of Public Affairs, 13(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1480
Hazan, R. Y., & Rahat, G. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford University Press.
Hindman, M. (2005). The real lessons of Howard Dean: Reflections on the first digital campaign. Perspectives on Politics, 3(1), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705050115
Hooghe, M., & Dassonneville, R. (2018). Explaining the Trump vote: The effect of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518000367.
Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. G. (2009). Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3–4), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903028438
Karlsen, R., & Enjolras, B. (2016). Styles of social media campaigning and influence in a hybrid political communication system: Linking candidate survey data with Twitter data. The International Journal of Press/politics, 21(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216645335
Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organisation and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068895001001001
King, A. J., Lazard, A. J., & White, S. R. (2020). The influence of visual complexity on initial user impressions: Testing the persuasive model of web design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(5), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1602167
Kirchheimer, O. (1966). The transformation of the western European party systems. In J. LaPalombara & M. Weiner (Eds.), Political parties and political development (pp. 177–200). Princeton University Press.
Kling, C.C., Kunegis, J., Hartmann, H., Strohmaier, M., & Staab, S. (2015). Voting behaviour and power in online democracy: A study of LiquidFeedback in Germany's Pirate Party. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.07723
Koc-Michalska, K., Gibson, R., & Vedel, T. (2014). Online campaigning in France, 2007–2012: political actors and citizens in the aftermath of the web. 2.0 evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.903217
Krämer, B. (2017). Populist online practices: The function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Information, Communication & Society, 20(9), 1293–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328520
Kreiss, D. (2012). Taking our country back: The crafting of networked politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. Oxford University Press.
Kreiss, D. (2016). Seizing the moment: The presidential campaigns’ use of Twitter during the 2012 electoral cycle. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1473–1490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814562445
Kruikemeier, S. (2014). How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.025
Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communications in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. (pp. 37–51). Harper.
Lawson, K. (1988). When linkage fails. In K. Lawson & P. H. Merkl (Eds.), When parties fail: Emerging alternative organisations (pp. 13–38). Princeton University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press.
Leavitt, H. J. (1965). Applied organisational change in industry: Structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organisations (pp. 1144–1170). Rand McNally and Company.
Lilleker, D. G., Koc-Michalska, K., Schweitzer, E. J., Jacunski, M., Jackson, N., & Vedel, T. (2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323111416182
Lobo, M. C., & Ferreira da Silva, F. (2018). Prime ministers in the age of austerity: An increase in the personalisation of voting behaviour. West European Politics, 41(5), 1146–1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2017.1380354
Margetts, H. (2006). Cyber parties. In R.S. Katz & W. Cotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics (pp. 528–535). Sage.
Michels, R. (1989 [1925, 1911]). Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie. Körner.
Mikola, B. (2018). New party organisations and intra-party democracy: A comparative analysis of the Five Star Movement and Podemos. https://pds.ceu.edu/sites/pds.ceu.hu/files/attachment/basicpage/478/balintmikoladissertationmanuscriptfinalsubmittedweb.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2019.
Mochmann, I. C., & El-Menouar, Y. (2005). Lifestyle groups, social milieus and party preference in Eastern and Western Germany: Theoretical considerations and empirical results. German Politics, 14(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000500340594
Nixon, P., & Johansson, H. (1999). Transparency through technology: The internet and political parties. In B. N. Hague & B. Loader (Eds.), Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 135–153). Routledge.
Nulty, P., Theocharis, Y., Popa, S. A., Parnet, O., & Benoit, K. (2016). Social media and political communication in the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. Electoral Studies, 44, 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.04.014
Öhberg, P., & Naurin, E. (2016). Party-constrained policy responsiveness: A survey experiment on politicians’ response to citizen-initiated contacts. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000010
Ohmura, T., Bailer, S., Meiβner, P., & Selb, P. (2018). Party animals, career changers and other pathways into parliament. West European Politics, 41(1), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2017.1323485
Pedersen, K., & Saglie, J. (2005). New technology in ageing parties: Internet use in Danish and Norwegian parties. Party Politics, 11(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805051782
Poguntke, T., & Webb, P. (2005). The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199252017.001.0001
Rahat, G., & Kenig, O. (2018). From party politics to personalized politics? Party change and political personalization in democracies. OUP.
Ramos-Serrano, M., Fernandez Gomez, J. D., & Pineda, A. (2018). ‘Follow the closing of the campaign on streaming’: The use of Twitter by Spanish political parties during the 2014 European elections. New Media & Society, 20(1), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816660730
Römmele, A. (2003). Political parties, party communication and new information and communication technologies. Party Politics, 9(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406880391002
Scarrow, S. E. (2014). Beyond party members. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661862.001.0001
Scheuch, F. (1999). Marketing für NPOs. In C. Badelt (Ed.), Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management (pp. 241–256). Schäffer-Poeschel.
Schweitzer, E. J. (2005). Election campaigning online: German party websites in the 2002 national elections. European Journal of Communication, 20(3), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323105055261
Skogerbø, E., & Krumsvik, A. H. (2014). Newspapers, Facebook and Twitter: Intermedial agenda-setting in local election campaigns. Journalism Practice, 9(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.950471
Slattery, P., Finnegan, P., & Vidgen, R. (2019). Creating compassion: How volunteering websites encourage prosocial behaviour. Information and Organisation, 29(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.02.001
Stier, S., Bleier, A., Lietz, H., & Strohmaier, M. (2018). Election campaigning on social media: Politicians, audiences, and the mediation of political communication on Facebook and Twitter. Political Communication, 35(1), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334728
Stelzer, M. (2016). Die Neuregelung der Parteienfinanzierung in Österreich. In S. Bukow, U. Jun & O. Niedermayer (Eds.), Parteien in Staat und Gesellschaft. (pp. 131–147). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05309-3_6
Strom, K. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111461
Strom, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007064803327
Tormey, S., & Feenstra, R. A. (2016). Reinventing the political party in Spain: The case of 15M and the Spanish mobilisations. Policy Studies, 36(6), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1073243
Vaccari, C. (2014). You’ve got (no) mail: How parties and candidates respond to e-mail inquiries in Western democracies. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.899536
Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2016). Party campaigners or citizen campaigners? How social media deepen and broaden party-related engagement. The International Journal of Press/politics, 21(3), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216642152
Valentino, N. A., Neuner, F. G., & Vandenbroek, L. M. (2018). The changing norms of racial political rhetoric and the end of racial priming. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1086/694845
von Arnim, H. H. (2011). Ungereimtheiten der Parteienfinanzierung. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, 20, 1278–1280.
Ward, S., Gibson, R., & Lusoli, W. (2003). Online participation and mobilisation in Britain: Hype, hope and reality. Parliamentary Affairs, 56(4), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsg108
Webb, P., Poletti, M., & Bale, T. (2017). So who really does the donkey work in ‘multi-speed membership parties’? Comparing the election campaign activity of party members and party supporters. Electoral Studies, 46, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.02.002
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jakob Gutmann, Friederike Holthuis and Sarah Kromin for their assistance. I would also like to thank all participants of the Workshop on Cyber Parties in Valencia 2018 for their useful comments. Special thanks go to Giulia Sandri and Oscar Barberà who encouraged me to dedicate a whole chapter to the concept of the Five-Pillar Model.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fitzpatrick, J. (2021). The Five-Pillar Model of Parties’ Migration into the Digital. In: Barberà, O., Sandri, G., Correa, P., Rodríguez-Teruel, J. (eds) Digital Parties. Studies in Digital Politics and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78667-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78668-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)