lit review 1st draft - june 2009

8/14/2019 Lit Review 1st Draft - June 2009

1/40

Literature Review - 1st Draft

How are Web 2.0 ideas shaping UK

political party networks online?


1


2/40


Image produced by http://www.wordle.net/

2


3/40


Introduction

The relationship between the political party and the citizen is a key one for western

democracy, but it is rapidly changing, possibly for the worse. As parties change, the ties

between party elites and party members or supporters are breaking down and ultimately

this could lead to a loss of confidence in political parties as relevant institutions. The

emergence of the World Wide Web promised to revolutionise this relationship, but there

is little evidence that this is the case, instead the academic community has broadly

settled on the idea that the web has had little impact on politics to date. Recently

however, there have emerged a set of technologies and ideas collectively known as Web

2.0 that speak to the ambitions of the earliest web theorists. Web 2.0 has the potential to

provide the tools necessary to restore the faltering relationship between political parties

and their members and supporters. This review is aimed at placing the question of the

impact of Web 2.0 on party online networks in an appropriate context by outlining the

theoretical concepts that underlie the interaction of political parties and the world wide

web.

Political parties are a vital institution in modern democracies, providing a simpledecision making framework for the majority of electorate, as well as lending legitimacy

to governments formed by members of a political party. The party is perceived by many

to be in decline based on falling membership numbers and declining partisan affiliation.

Although not all would agree that this constitutes a decline, there are many different

explanations for party change, varying from developmental factors such as rising

educational standards to contextual factors such as wars and scandals. One of the

consequences of party change may well be a decline in the accountability of party elites

to their supporters as parties increasingly become detached from those they are

supposed to represent.

Initial work on the web rarely addresses the issue of political parties, but many of the

conclusions reached by the early theorists are as applicable to political parties as they

are to other organisations or individuals online. Traditionally the internet debate is

presented as being dominated by either optimistic or pessimistic approaches to the web,

either hailing the possibilities of having access to this vast new source of information, or

3


4/40


warning against the dangers that are associated with replacing traditional activities with

pale online substitutes. Ultimately, the thesis which came to dominate our understanding

of the web and politics, and the one for which there is most empirical evidence, is that

the web has done little which has been either beneficial or detrimental to politics.

The final aspect of this question, and the one which opens up new opportunities for

research is that of Web 2.0. Although the term is something of an enigma, hard to define

and more likely to be a confluence of several independent trends as opposed to one

defining factor, it successfully distinguishes the web as it is now as compared to the web

as it was at the turn of the century. Blogs, social networking, and an overall focus on the

idea of user generated content rather than the content of an elite, has left the web in a

state which is markedly different from the early static web pages. As such it is again

time to re-evaluate what the web means for politics, and in this case, party politics, and

reassess the potential for the web to restore the connection between parties and their

supporters.

Theoretically Web 2.0 can accelerate the positive trends established by the early

optimistic writers by simplifying the requirements for individuals to participate in partypolitics online. Making a contribution is no longer predicated on having a working

knowledge of constructing web pages, but is instead possible through a myriad of online

services, both hosted by political parties and independent of them. As well as the ease of

access, Web 2.0 also represents the web going mainstream and being embraced as a tool

by society at large. For many years the web existed in as an 'alternative' medium, the

realm of the technologically knowledgeable, but recently the web has found more

mainstream acceptance as a tool for social expression.

All in all, Web 2.0 may move the debate on from the politics as usual thesis by

providing a set of tools which enable parties to take greater notice of their supporters

and supporters to demand more of their parties. This thesis concentrates only on a small

part of a particular aspect of the liberal democratic system in the UK, specifically,

online party networks. But it is this area more than any other in which we can expect to

see the influence of Web 2.0 begin to unfold.

4


5/40


Party Change

Starting at the most basic level we ask, what is a political party for?

The answer is not simple, but there is a surprisingly high degree of consensus around

the central roles of the modern political party:

Candidate selection

Interest aggregation

Mobilising support

A focus for the electorate

This is a generic list, but it does summarise lists produced by many writers who have

considered the subject of party function (Lusoli & Ward, 2004 ; Webb et al, 2002;

Margetts, 2001 ; Kirchheimer, 1969 ; McKenzie, 1965; Rommele, 2003; Webb, 2002).

It is perhaps evidence of the important role of parties in modern democracy that we see

such a consensus on their basic functions. Some writers have chosen to go into greater

detail than others, but the same functions appear on almost every list, the party is thereto select and train candidates for political office, to represent the views of those it claims

to speak for, aggregating competing ideas where necessary, provide a framework for

voters to make complex political decisions, and finally the party is there as a campaign

tool, to educate and motivate the electorate to vote for its agenda.

In addition to this basic list some writers have expanded on an important overall

function of political parties, legitimacy. Yani (1999) argues that political parties are key

to resolving the friction between the notion of equality and the practice of representation

inherent in western democracies, i.e. that whilst we are all notionally equal, only some

are permitted to make decisions:

'Most public institutions take part in some fashion in producing a response to

the overall problem of legitimacy of the representative regime. The political

party, however, plays a special and pivotal role in this process. Moreover the

very existence of the political party and the fulfilment of its special role in the

5


6/40


periodic reorganization of the representative regime (elections and the

formation of the government) convert the unresolved problem of conceptual

legitimacy (the clash between equality and representation) into the more

manageable problem of institutional legitimacy (how do the parties and

institutions of government each perform their duties?)'

(Yani, 1999, p9)

Parties are not static organisations, but ones that change over time. The earliest parties

were institutionalised cliques of interest installed in legislative bodies such as the House

of Commons. In the UK the factional interests formed elite groups or cadres of

politicians, as the franchise at the time was so limited however there was little need for

these interests to even attempt to appeal to the interests of the common man or woman

(Margetts, 2001; McKenzie, 1965). McKenzie (1965) attributes the modern party

system in the UK to the 1832 Reform Act which expanded the franchise by an estimated

49% and marked the end of the Commons as a closed political arena. Leaving exact

dates aside however, as electorates began to enlarge there emerged a need for parties to

have some basis in the society at large as a way to attract enough votes to remain inpower. The mass party as a form was born out of a response to this change and the need

to establish supporting organisations which could allow parties to reach voters. Based

on having a large membership organisation, the mass party was able to communicate

with its members through the extensive party organisation which developed around it

(Margetts, 2001).

The caucuses of the first type are here replaced by branches. These are

working units, wider-based and less exclusive, in which political education of

members assumes considerable importance alongside the purely electoral

activity.

(Duverger, 1954, p1-2)

In recent years, however, the mass party has also been challenged and to many it is seen

as a model of the past (Webb, 2002; Seyd & Whitley, 2004). Instead many parties seem

to be adopting a model which is de-coupled from what would have traditionally been

6


7/40


considered the party membership base. Current parties are for the most part composed

of small professional and centrally controlled organisations which are reliant on the

mass media, not the mass organisation, in order to attract votes. Kirchheimer (1969)

identifies the catch-all model as the next step for parties in the post-war environment.

The catch-all model was de-coupled from the mass of the electorate, and instead was

focussed on vote getting from as broad a range of voters as possible. The catch-all

model is not dependent on a mass organisation to reach potential voters as in the mass

model and so, consequently, the importance of membership is reduced as full time

members are replaced by supporters.

Katz & Mair (1995) go even further than Kirchheimer in identifying a further

development in the party models in the development of what they term the cartel party.

Based on the increasing importance of political parties Katz and Mair outline a situation

where the party goes from being the agent of the citizen acting on the government (mass

party) to the broker between the citizen and government (catch-all) and then being

completely assimilated by the state (cartel). In this situation the party would sustain

itself with resources from the state and the relationship between the party and the citizen

would be dramatically curtailed.

The models described here are not absolute, in fact it is highly unlikely that any party

will fit completely within the definition of one model or another as the types above are

intended as conceptual ideas, not a historical framework. It is also possible for

contrasting models to operate within the same political system (Margetts, 2001). All in

all we should be careful to avoid viewing these models as a teleology or evolution to an

ultimate goal or 'higher' type of party, but instead recognise that parties will adapt their

parties according to their own unique circumstances (Padro-Solanet, 2009).

The principal consequence of party change is falling membership figures for political

parties. Measuring party membership is a very difficult proposition. There is no

requirement for parties to publish their membership figures, and arguably many reasons

to exaggerate or distort the figures when they do, as such any measurement of party

membership represents only a best guess (Margetts, 2001; Scarrow, 2000). Katz and

Mair found a precipitous drop in party membership in the UK between 1964 and 1987.

7


8/40


As a percentage of the overall electorate the number of UK citizens involved in parties

fell from 9.4% to 3.3%, a decline of 6.1 percentage points (Katz& Mair, 1992, p334).

As an absolute number party membership went down by 56.2% in the same period

(ibid, p332). A follow up paper to this fills in the missing information between 1990 and

2000. It found that in this time period UK party membership again halved to the point

were only 1.92% of the electorate was a member of a political party (Mass & Biezen,

2001 p9 & p12). Scarrow's figures cover a wider time period, suggesting that party

membership as a percentage of the UK electorate has dropped from 10% in the 1950's to

1.9% in the 1990s (Scarrow, 2000, p90). Despite the methodological questions, the best

guess at party membership available points to less than 2% of the population being

members of a political party.

Heidar & Saglie (2003) are critical of treating part membership figures as the be all and

end all of the party change debate. They argue that the figures do little to explain who is

leaving the party and why, for instance there be a case for arguing that party activism

will remain relatively constant over time, despite declining membership figures simply

because the least active members of the party are the ones falling by the way side.

Despite this there is a question over what role a political party with so few members canclaim in a representative democracy.

In addition to the decline in party membership, another consequence of party change is

the apparent convergence of ideologies as parties dash to occupy the central ground

where they perceive they can attract the most votes (Webb et al, 2002; Margetts, 2001).

The classic demonstration of this has been the reinvention of the British Labour Party in

the 1990s, culminating in the election victory of 1997, but perhaps best characterised by

the 1995 decision to remove a commitment to nationalisation from the party's

manifesto. Kirchheimer (1969) in describing the catch-all party argued that any party

that wanted to adhere to the catch-all model would have to sever links with the

ideological past as a way to reach out to as many voters as possible. The resultant

parties are likely to be much less ideologically driven, and instead driven by vote

maximising behaviours which would require them to move away from any positions

which could drive away fickle floating voters (such as a commitment to nationalisation).

8


9/40


The central dynamic of this change has been the relationship of the party to its members

or in the case of later party models, its supporters. By and large the trend has been one

of separation, with the party seemingly growing increasingly distant from the interests it

claims to speak for. Lusoli and Ward (2004) characterise this change as:

'These have arguably strengthened the position of party elites whilst eroding the

collective power of activists.'

(Lusoli and Ward, 2004, p454)

As communication has moved away from mass organisations and into the realm of the

mass media, and as parties have become less ideologically focussed and instead

concentrated on vote maximising behaviours, the notional base of support to which

political parties lay claim is evidently withering away. Lusoli and Ward characterised

this as moving away from an aggregating function which stipulates acting based on the

interests of party members, towards and articulating function, which is based to a much

greater degree on salesmanship (Lusoli & Ward, 2004).

Ultimately, the decline in membership and the decline in partisanship may result in a

loss of legitimacy for political parties (Seyd & Whitley, 2004; Yani, 1999). With fewer

members and fewer supporters, parties will have a harder and harder time maintaining

the notion that they have a legitimate base of support for their policies. Some have

argued that this has never been the case, that parties have always been essentially

vehicles to power for ambitious elites (McKenzie, 1965; Michaels, 1915). Despite this

background level of cynicism however the party has acted as a source of legitimisation

for candidates, and with its declining influence this function may grow increasingly

difficult resulting in a loss of confidence in the political system. If the relationship

between the party and its supporters breaks down, then to some extent at least the

relationship between citizens and the government also suffers.

As to what is causing party change, there are a number of theories which could explain

the transition from the mass party model to the catch-all or cartel model. The

overarching cause is one of societal change which has caused parties to adjust their

9


10/40


organisations to cope with changing expectations from members of society. As society

has grown more complex and citizens' interests have diversified, the old identities which

sustained the mass party model are no longer as steadfast (Webb et al, 2002; Yani, 1999;

Kirchheimer, 1969; Katz & Mair, 1995). Citizens no longer easily fit into the categories

such as labour and management as they did prior to the Second World War, instead

society has atomised with individuals now basing their affiliations on complex sets of

interests. There is also an argument that increasing standards of education have also

brought with them an increased reluctance to toe the party line without question,

creating voters who have higher expectations of their politicians (Dalton & Wattenberg,

2000; Dalton, 2000). Where parties were once thought of as a way to simplify politics,

voters are increasingly willing to make up their own minds on issues rather than relying

on a party to tell them what 'people like them' should think.

Additionally, party change has coincided with the apparent rise of alternative political

groups which seemingly compete for attention with mainstream political parties (Seyd

& Whitley, 2004; Dalton & Wattenberg, 2000). As society becomes increasingly diverse

it requires a greater number of more diverse groups to represent it (Lipow & Seyd,

1996). In such a way a political party which is forced to aggregate the concerns of agreat many may be seen as a poor bet compared to a single issue group which

absolutely matches your interests.

The mass media has also been identified as one possible source of party change (Dalton

& Wattenberg, 2000). Under the mass party model the media is a secondary

consideration as a tool for reaching potential voters as the party organisation is expected

to be the principal channel of communication. With the arrival of television and radio

however, the public gained access to a host of new sources of information, none of them

controlled by a political party. Whereas once party members may have derived their

entire knowledge of politics based on their membership of the party they are now

exposed to competing sources of information. Dalton and Wattenberg (2000) argue that

the mass media usurped this party channel and replaced the party as the principal source

of political information for many. Of all the sources of party change, the mass media is

the one with the most direct link with the web. The idea of the web as new media as

well as the possibilities now emerging for video and sound online creates a direct

10


11/40


parallel with the emergence of radio and television as sources of information with the

public.

We might also consider that party change may be a function of a broader change in

politics at the macro level (Dalton & Wattenberg, 2000). It may well be that the public

at large is simply no longer interested in politics and consequently the political parties

have learned to do more with less and adapted to the diminished levels of support now

available. As people become less engaged with politics as whole, naturally parties will

find greater difficulty in recruiting the members needed to sustain the mass party type

party and as such be pressured to move to more efficient party types.

One of the difficulties in negotiating the idea of party change is separating out cause and

effect. Although the above makes a distinction between the drivers of party change and

their impacts, this is largely arbitrary. For instance one could quite easily make the

claim that the reliance of parties on mass media as a communication channel is a result

of the shift towards the catch-all model rather than a cause of it. It may be difficult to

imagine, but there is nothing to suggest that a large party organisation and a competent

media operation are mutually exclusive. Likewise with the decline in partisanship or thefall in membership numbers, are these results of party change, or is party change driving

the fall in numbers?

A final point about party change. Many have considered that the changes outlined above

represent a crisis or a decline for political parties. In many ways this is the case, but we

should also consider the starting point for this decline. Was there really a golden age of

mass parties in which the party leadership was under the leash of the party members?

(Scarrow, 2000; McKenzie, 1965) Many think not, in fact the emergence of the mass

party model itself has prompted similar claims of decline based on the supposed level of

party control over parliamentary business (McKenzie, 1965). It does seem that the link

between party member/supporters and parties is weaker now than it has been in the past.

Despite this, there is no indication that the party is about to disappear for ever. The

proliferation of party models demonstrates that parties have been able to adapt over time

to suit changing circumstance.

11


12/40


Leaving aside the uncertainty around the issue of cause and effect, we can be relatively

sure that parties are changing. These changes have resulted in the decline of the mass

party model, and the apparent rise of catch-all and cartel parties, both of which place

considerably less emphasis on the role of membership in the party organisation. The

central hypothesis of this thesis is that the web, and more specifically Web 2.0 works in

such a way that it may reverse or temper this trend, handing power back to the

individual party members or supporters.

12


13/40


The world wide web and party change

The internet is a global telecommunications network often described as a network of

networks. It allows computer users to communicate with one another using an agreed

set of protocols which in turn allows for a number of applications, including:

email

the world wide web

multiplayer gaming

voice over IP telephony

instant messaging

The subject of this thesis is the web, but, for many writers the terms internet and web

have become almost interchangeable. This is perhaps symptomatic of the transition of

many services that were previously based on the computer desktop to the web, for

instance the prevalence of web mail services such as hotmail or Gmail. If, as some

predict, an increasing number of previously desktop applications are based on the web

in future, then this distinction is likely to become even fuzzier.1

As it stands though, thisthesis is focussed on the web and the impact of innovations in the web on political

parties.

Initially the web was created at CERN on the French-Swiss border, now home to the

Large Hadron Collider. Keeping track of information at CERN was difficult, especially

given the short tenure of many of the researchers there. Information was being lost in

the shuffle.

'In providing a system for manipulating this sort of information, the hope would

be to allow a pool of information to develop which could grow and evolve with

the organisation and the projects it describes. For this to be possible, the

method of storage must not place its own restraints on the information. This is

1 For an example of this trend we can look at the availability of applications online through Google

such as Google docs and the proposed forthcoming operating system from Google 'Chrome' which is

likely to be much more web centric than any OS before it. Microsoft has also announced it's intentionto provide applications online.

13


14/40


why a web of notes with links (like references) between them is far more

useful than a fixed hierarchical system. When describing a complex system many

people resort to diagrams with circles and arrows. Circles and arrows leave one

free to describe the interrelationships between things in a way that tables for

example do not. The system we need is like a diagram of circles and arrows,

where the circles and arrows can stand for anything.'

(Berners-Lee, 1989)

This method of storage grew and developed into the World Wide Web, millions of pages

linked to one another, free from hierarchical constraints. Although the system described

by Berners-Lee is relatively dry compared to the rich visual experience we see today, it

remains the lynchpin of every site on the web.

For political parties, the web was potentially a source of great change, once again

altering the social landscape in ways to which the party must adapt. Just as the mass

media took over the functions of party information provision, the new media (as it has

come to be known) may well once again alter the dynamic.

Little has been written explicitly on the role of the web in party change. Despite this,

much of the general literature can applied to political parties. For the central dynamic of

party change, the relationship between the supporter and the party there are a number of

possible scenarios evident in the literature. For the purposes of this review I have

approached these scenarios as either optimistic (strengthening the relationship),

pessimistic (weakening the relationship) or finally neutral outcomes, having no effect

one way or another.

Optimistic scenarios

The defining characteristic of the web is the availability of information. Initially

conceived as an information storage system, the primary attraction of the web as a

medium is the amount of information available to the user from a diverse range of

sources. For a political party this is likely to alter the way in which they communicate

14


15/40


information to their supporters or members.

Writers such as Benkler (2006) and Castells (1996) have speculated that we are now

living in a society which is based on information and not as has been the case in the past

the physical production of goods; as they term it an information society. Negroponte

(1995) concurs with this assessment, describing a transition from atoms to bits in his

exploration of the impact of the internet, i.e. that the emphasis of our economy has

moved from physical products to digital information. Negroponte emphasises the

opportunity provided for acquiring information from new and different sources,

suggesting that in the future we will all become the editors of our own 'Daily Me'

(Negroponte, 1995, p153). In this interpretation, the gatekeeping function of the mass

media would end, and instead, every user would in effect become their own gatekeeper,

choosing what sources they trust and what kind of information they want to see.

Given the importance of the mass media to the current crop of political parties, we may

well see this as a challenge to the existing order. Having new and diverse sources of

information may well be a boon to the ordinary supporter, allowing them to assess, in a

much more critical light, party communications and action. Despite this however, thechange from party led to media led communication effected in the transition from mass

to catch-all models seemingly had little effect on the role of the ordinary supporter. That

was however a case of communication passing from one elite, the party, to another, the

editors. What Negroponte describes is a broader democratisation of information. Parties

will always be able to use the web as a channel to their supporters, but now, so can

anyone else, and there is no guarantee that what the party has to say will be seen as the

dominant or 'true' side of the story. Party communications would now have to compete

with a vast number of diverse sources of information, many of them beyond the party's

influence.

As well as more information however, the arrival of the web and ICTs in general, has

also raised the question of how supporters interact and participate in political parties.

For the first time, frequent ballots on party issues are a real possibility for party

governance. The availability of connected computer terminals in the home or at work,

would theoretically dramatically reduce the participation cost and the logistics involved

15


16/40


in a direct plebiscitary election. Budge (1996) advocates that in a governmental context

such technology would allow for referenda on any important decisions, a supposed

return to Athenian values. Budge even makes a case for saying that an argument against

this kind of hyper-plebiscitary democracy would be an argument against democracy

itself. The reality is, as usual, far more complex than the theory. The argument for direct

democracy is valid, but arguably places too much emphasis on the rhetoric of equality

rather than the experience of representation. Democracy is not perfect, and the

institutions that opinion is filtered through are as much a part of our democracy as the

act of voting. By reducing democracy to push-button ranking of preferences it seems

that some of the more nebulous aspects of what makes our democracy function may be

lost (Street, 1997).

There are of course further complications with the direct democracy argument, the

'black box problem' is a common one in technology. Put simply, we do not understand

how many things function at a basic level. Taking the web as an example, a user may

understand the inputs such as text or even html code, they may understand the outputs,

an email or a web page on the screen, but the process by which an input becomes an

output is largely unknown except to a small group of technologically skilled individuals.Asked to describe how the internet works, it is unlikely that many users could describe

this even in conceptual terms, let alone in technical ones. Put another way, how many

people do you know who have the knowledge to build a telecommunications network?

In such circumstances, is it really possible to develop an online electoral system which

is not only tamper proof, but also has the confidence of the electorate or supporters? A

paper ballot is logistically complex, but conceptually very simple and therefore arguably

inherently more trust-worthy.

One key example concerns a 2009 internet poll by Time Magazine which sought to find

the top 100 most influential individuals. As an indicator of how these polls can be

rigged, not only did a relatively obscure website owner win the poll ahead of figures

such as Barack Obama, but the following entries were arranged so that their first initials

spelt out a message. (Time, 2009; Lamere, 2009) This is largely undocumented except

for sketchy blog postings, but serves as a good example of how little we understand the

inner workings of the web and consequently it may be difficult to stand by a poll result

16


17/40


reached in this way.

Despite these problems, the embryonic empirical evidence on political parties

participation systems seems to suggest that there is a role for direct democracy in

political parties. Boyd (2008) found that of the four e-political parties (parties which

function primarily online) he identified, three of them were incorporating direct voting

into their internal participation, voting in favour or against specific policies, and

transmitting these votes to their politicians who then carried them out. Only one party in

Boyd's study embraced a more holistic model which involved collaboration and

integrated deliberation. So despite the drawbacks, it seems that at the party level, direct

democracy is playing a key role in empowering supporters of some specific party types.

It is worth noting that Boyd only looked at parties he considered to be fully online, and

he did not look at the integration of online elements into existing parties.

More discursive forms of participation may be more likely in established parties. Since

the 'Zapatista effect' (Cleaver, 1998, p622) there has been a great deal of interest in how

social movements and campaign groups were taking advantage of ICTs in their

campaigns. Initially the simplest tools seem to have been the focus of these campaigngroups, such as email and websites (Lin & Dutton, 2003), but as time has gone on

efforts have become more sophisticated and now tools such as independent media web

sites like Indymedia (which was created to report on the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle),

or collaborative wikis, have been embraced and become an important aspect of online

activists (Pickerill, 2006). The development of the blogsphere is another area which has

been linked to the rise of online social movements and campaign groups (Khan &

Kellner, 2004). The emerging picture has been one of the development of communities

linked together through ICT, most with a strong commitment to internal democracy and

non-hierarchical forms of governance.

'Crucially, with respect to democratic principles, it has strengthened the ability

of networks to retain non-hierarchical forms of organising, thus contradicting

Michaels' Iron law of oligarchy.'

(Pickerill, 2006, p272)

17


18/40


Chadwick (2007) theorises that such online protest movements may inspire groups

which are invested in more traditional forms of political participation.

'I want to suggest that traditional interest groups and parties are experiencing

Internet fuelled increases in grass roots influence in a way that social

movements now take for granted as part of their non-hierarchical 'movement is

the message' approach.'

(Chadwick, 2007, p286)

Chadwick argues that many established political groups are co-opting the tactics of

online social movements which suggests that political parties may be developing their

own online communities. The internet promotes organisational change and adaptation,

and as such allows established organisations to experiment with new forms of

mobilisation, going beyond 'brochureware' approaches towards a more community

based web presence by involving online networks. What is crucial to note from the

passage however is the idea that the increased importance of the grass roots was

internet fuelled, i.e. we should not expect the parties themselves to instigate suchchange. Networks develop spontaneously on the web simply by virtue of the fact that

they are online. The web has always been based on linking information together in a

free-form, non-hierarchical fashion resulting in the development of networks around

issues. If this is the case, then discussion will take place, regardless of the wishes of the

party.

In summary, there are a number of reasons why the web might go some way to restoring

the link between parties and their supporters in a way which is not part of the present

party - supporter relationship. This may come through greater access to information and

therefore greater accountability and responsiveness, or it may come through new forms

of participation be they based on voting or discussing issues.

Pessimistic responses

18


19/40


In direct opposition to the new wealth of information available is what Benkler (2006)

describes as the Babel objection, with so much information available, is there a risk that

users may simply drown in information, overwhelmed by too many contrasting

opinions? Benkler solves the Babel objection by arguing that internet users form self

recommending communities which vet materials for one another and pass the quality or

important information up the ladder to more generalist news sources. So for example, as

story may start out being talked about by a few friends in a forum before being picked

up by more and more sources until eventually it makes its way to a mainstream site

where it is available to be picked up some one who is only casually interested in the

subject. In this way much of the micro level detail, whilst available for those that want

to find it, is largely hidden from view. Still, there may be a case for arguing that in party

political terms, the more information is available to the supporters of a political party,

the less responsive the party needs to be as it can simply bury opponents with

information whilst safe in the knowledge that few if any would have the resources

necessary to sift through the masses of information available online.

Related but distinct from the Babel objection is the echo chamber effect described by

Sunstein (2007). Sunstein argues that in the online world information is so readilyavailable that a user would not necessarily ever have to view information they disagreed

with and that in such circumstances opinions become entrenched and radicalised.

Sunstein argues that communities feed off of themselves in the quest for social

acceptance and attempts to out radical fellows. There is no denying that the web has

enabled hate groups to co-ordinate in a way which was previously impossible, but the

argument for radicalisation is limited by diversification in the offline media which has

similar implications. Conservatives read conservative newspapers and liberals liberal

newspapers, just as conservatives read conservative blogs and liberals read liberal blogs.

The echo chamber effect by Sunstein is a problem, but not one confined to the online

world. For the party system, the echo-chamber effect would be manifest as an

entrenchment of party views to the exclusion of sensible debate. Many might argue that

this is already the case, that we currently have partisans for partisans sake, but a more

severe form of the echo chamber may be one of the consequences of increased access to

information.

19


20/40


The social aspects of the web look set to become the biggest drivers of its success,

however, they are not universally accepted. Putnam (2000) groups the internet with

other factors which he considers as privatisation of leisure time and therefore

detrimental to the forming of the 'real' ties which support political engagement. This

harks back to the image of the web as populated by only the socially isolated, and seems

to draw strength from studies carried out at the time which seem to point to the anti-

social effects of the internet (Nie & Erbring, 2000). This line of reasoning argues that

the web is not a valid medium for forming ties between users. Whilst there is a

difference between online and offline relationships, it is not the case that web can be

considered an isolated or private medium. Admittedly the ties that are formed online are

different to the real world ties which Putnam argues are necessary for engagement, they

none the less do seem to constitute social ties (Wellman et al, 1996). The argument that

the net is in someway antisocial and therefore of limited political use would preclude all

but the most cursory forms of participation online, and would in the end lead to a

decline in participation as the social factors which encourage people to get involved

with causes ebb away.

In addition to concerns over socialisation, many highlight the possible downside ofincreased use of the online sphere by political parties as a potential increase in control.

'Do the new media, with their ability to collect, store, process and transmit

information facilitate and enhance or limit and regress debate? In other words

do new media offer potential for both liberation and control?'

(Wring & Horrocks, 2001,p 207)

As far back as pre-web networks such as the WELL described by Rheingold (1992,

2000) there have been warnings about the surveillance issues which come from living

even part of your life online, the most notable of which is Jeremy Bentham's

hypothesised panoptican. The best form of control is when an individual knows they

may be being watched at any time. As much power as the web grants to individuals, the

same benefits are enjoyed by party elites who now have access to levels of information

about individuals never before possible. Sophisticated marketing techniques are already

20


21/40


a key part of most election campaigns, but with the availability of information online

this issue can only grow more acute as party elites find out an ever greater level of detail

about their members and supporters.

One striking piece of real world testimony comes from the recent successful 2008

campaign of Barrack Obama, in particular the activities of one prominent group

MoveOn. Often praised for using technology in an innovative way, some reports argue

that technology was used in rigidly hierarchical ways by a campaign team intent on

controlling those lower down the chain.

No one really quit, but there was some crying and a lot of frustration just about

how rigid the campaign was But if one day Im someone whos in the position

to be at the top of a big campaign wheel like that, I think I would more of a point

of making sure everyone felt empowered.

(Hari, 2008, p12)

This is anecdotal evidence, but just as technology can empower the rank and file in an

organisation, it can equally empower those at the higher rungs of the ladder.

Politics as usual the null

Despite the positive and negative interpretations of the web's impact, the dominant

thesis related to the web and politics is that it will have little impact in the grand scheme

of things. The earliest writers saw the web as a source of revolutionary rather than

evolutionary change, and they made bold statements about what the new technology

was capable of. It is difficult to read Rheingold and Negroponte without seeing the

world turned upside down. The politics as usual thesis maintains that the online world

will closely mirror the inequalities of the offline world, allowing the elite to empower

themselves at the expense of the masses who do not have the resources or the capacity

to exploit new technologies.

Margolis and Resnik (2000) describe the original net as existing in a Lockean state of

21


22/40


nature, based on mutual co-operation which was then corrupted by commercial

interests. As they see it the altruistic nature of the web was forsaken in favour of a more

commercial mentality. As a result:

'Political life on the internet has moved away from fluid cyber-communities in

which civic life centres around free discussion and debate. It has entered an era

of organized civil society and structured group pluralism with a relatively

passive citizenry.'

(Margolis & Resnik, 2000, p7)

They describe a situation where the big interests have once again come to dominate the

political landscape and majority are again reduced to passive consumers of politics. It

seems early for writers to already be harking back to a golden age of the web before it

'sold out' but none the less, it must be acknowledged that online content has become

more professional and the big parties have occupied prominent pieces of online real-

estate. Margolis and Resnik also argue that these new online giants are not online in the

interest of tapping the possibilities of increased supporter interaction, but simply toprotect their interests and push their message in the new media channel.

In addition, the fact is, that even today, despite the growth in net access world wide, the

majority of the world's population does not have access to the internet. Cyber

democracy as we are discussing it here will only apply to that small fraction of the

world which has both a democratic government of the type assumed here, and net

access. Beyond the international level, there are also divides within society, as the

online population is relentlessly bias towards the economically and socially advantaged

(Norris, 2001). It seems that there is little that can be said in defence of this online

participation bias, if the internet does create more responsive political parties, they will

not be responding to the under privileged, but in a sense, they will be responding to

similar sorts of people that they have always responded to. This is a scenario backed up

by research which has failed to reveal anything but the smallest of gains for what are

typically considered disenfranchised groups (Gibson et al, 2005; Digennaro & Dutton,

2006).

22


23/40


In the same way that mass illiteracy and poor access to books was not a permanent feature of

our society, neither is the Digital Divide. Some writers have argued that universal access

may one day be a reality, and given trends in development of mobile phones as well as

the most web aware generation of children ever, the digital divide seems like it may be

only a temporary fixture, a problem of today, but not of tomorrow. (Krueger, 2002). As

it stands though, the digital divide is a phenomenon we must take into account in this

analysis, the methods of participation discussed in this appear are not open to everyone.

Empirically, the trend has also been one of limited change. For political parties, there

seems to have little impact as a result of the web. Heidar & Saglie (2003) conducted a

study of linkage in Norwegian political parties. One of the components of their work

examined the theorised cyberparty model, and they found a stark contrast between those

who were members of a party and those who either held office or were Congress

delegates. They argued that:

'Likewise we must reject the hypothesis that internet based participation has

come into regular use (H3.1) The internet has as yet had limited impact on theactivism of ordinary party members. In spite of much hype about the parties'

web pages, the traditional organisation still structures the core party activities

of nominations, programme making and leadership selection. However the

higher levels of internet use among the most integrated and active party

members (H3.2) and the young (H3.3) may cause future changes in the way

'party politics' is conducted.'

(Heidar & Saglie, 2003, p782)

In addition, the most recent UK based party research found little role for ICTs in either

widening participation in political parties, or deepening it. Lusoli & Ward (2004)

conducted a survey of both Labour party members and Liberal Democrat Party

members using an online survey. They discovered that whilst there were significant

opportunities for online engagement, that they had little effect in expanding the user

base beyond those who were already active.

23


24/40


'Although ICTs may facilitate a modest widening of the party base, the more

significant impact is the further deepening of participatory activities amongst

activists. Consequently, ICTs may well further entrench existing participation

divides in political parties.'

(Lusoli & Ward, 2004, p467)

This is the position which pervades the literature on politics online. Empirical research

has failed to find any solid evidence of the predicted revolution, finding only minor

evolutionary changes in specific groups (Gibson et al, 2005; Bimber, 2001). Overall the

message is largely one of no change, although ICTs may be providing new ways for

people to engage with parties, by and large it is the same people who engage offline

who are active online. The limited impact of ICT on increasing participation in political

parties however masks other impacts which are equally important. Whilst it is true that

the same old crowd is interacting with political parties, the ways in which they are

interacting and the opportunities being created for interaction have seemingly expanded

as a result of these new technologies.

Party Networks

Despite the conflicting approaches to the impact of the web, every political party in the

UK has some kind of web presence, their sites range from the small scale to large

professional productions rich with interactivity. It is evident that none of the parties has

chosen to forego the web and concentrate solely on the offline world as a source of

support.

There is a rich tradition of social movements using technology as the basis for political

activity (Pickerill, 2006). The common originator of this trend for the majority of

writers is the Zapatista movement based in Mexico (Cleaver, 1998). The Zapatistas were

behind an uprising in Mexico in 1994 which was protesting land and labour reforms

seen as unjust by many. The movement was characterised by the skilful use of ICTs in

24


25/40


order to get their message across to the outside world, most notably foreign NGOs,

which linked the Zapatista's cause with a broader social justice movement.

We can expect to see a similar pattern of development for political parties. Their

websites will be situated within a broader network discussing politics. Just as the main

party site might contain links to local branch pages, candidate sites, there is also likely

to be links to think tanks, news stories and independent comment from individuals. For

a political party, the biggest consequence of this online link culture, is the ability of the

central party to control information within its online space. Whilst party websites can be

controlled through normal vetting practices, the party cannot control external sites

which may want to link in to the party network. So for example a page containing

information critical of a political party could link to the party homepage and

consequently form party of the online network.

Political parties online

There is some question as to how best to reconcile the arrival of the web with the

existing taxonomy of political parties. Firstly, there is the possibility that the web willallow for the development of a new and distinct form of political party. Margetts (2001)

presents the web as an organisational challenge to which political parties will be forced

to respond in order to survive. She argues that the web will give rise to a new form of

political party:

'An alternative response might be another 'ideal type' of political party, with it's

origins in developments in media and information and communication

technologies, particularly the internet, combined with new trends in political

participation and de-institutionalisation of political parties: the 'cyber' party.'

(Margetts, 2001, p8)

For Margetts the defining feature of this new ideal party type was that the relationship

between members and elites would be strengthened through the use of ICT. In the

cyber-party routine party functions would be done online, allowing party supporters to

25


26/40


take a direct role in candidate selection.

Other approaches have predicted the response of established party models to the use of

the web. Lofgren and Smith (2003) produced a detailed taxonomy of political parties

online, arguing that existing party characteristics would play a big role in the parties

web operation and factors such as party ideology and typology would define how the

party would come to use the web and view its membership. They argue that there are

four key strategies that parties will adopt based on their values. For instance, that mass

parties will use the web as a bi-directional tool in order to give party members greater

say over what happens in the party day to day. In contrast he argues that cartel parties

will use the web as a uni-directional campaigning tool. He also outlines two other

approaches, consumerist (akin to catch-all) which uses the web as a way to gauge public

opinion and focus policy, and the grassroots strategy which is based on a multi-

directional discursive approach.

For Lofgren & Smith the web was not a defining factor for a party in the way it seems

to be for Margetts. Instead, they view the web as adding to the repertoires of existing

parties, and that web use will very much depend on how the party sees itself and wherethey fit in in the taxonomy. Mass parties use the web to gain traction with their members

whilst more centralised parties use the web to better articulate their message to voters.

Such an approach tends to minimise the importance of the web as a factor for party

change. Whilst parties will always have the final say over the aspects of the web under

their control, this may not be the case for aspects of the web that are outside of their

control. A cartel party for instance may face calls to be more responsive to its supporters

demands in much the same way as a mass party as a result of supporters being able to

express their views through the web. Margetts argues that the web is a challenge to the

existing party model whereas Lofgren & Smith see it as something which can be co-

opted and controlled according to individual party rhetoric.

26


27/40


Web 2.0

In its original incarnation the web seemed like it might spell dramatic change for the

political party as an organisation. The politics as usual thesis however seems to have

won out, with parties seemingly adapting to the new arena of party politics online in

ways which has done little to increase the power of the party supporters.

Like any research in a fast changing field however, we need to add the caveat 'yet' to

any finding. As some have acknowledged, in many ways the web has been in its infancy

during the initial period of research, not yet fully formed, its final manifestation still

being shaped by tech start ups, enthusiasts and millions of individual users. This process

is by no means yet complete, and in many ways it is doubtful that the web will ever

reach a static form in which we can finally and conclusively capture its effect on our

world. Much like the political party, the web is a constantly evolving and developing

phenomenon. Web 2.0 is a way of conceptualising the next stage of the development of

the web. It represents the next rung on the evolutionary ladder and the next set of

challenges to the current model of party organisation.

Defining Web 2.0 is a challenge, and a comprehensive definition has yet to emerge from

the literature. Some commentators decry the term as nothing more than a meaningless

buzz word, but at its heart, Web 2.0 does tell us about some fundamental changes in the

way we see and use the web.

In the popular understanding Web 2.0 can be thought of as services which rely on user-

generated content and allow for interaction over the web. When most people are asked

to give an example of a Web 2.0 site, they will invariably mention Facebook, or one of

the other social networking sites, as well as talk about blogging as a more general

phenomenon. One internet wag defines Web 2.0 as follows:

Web 1.0 was created for physicists to share papers

Web 2.0 was created so people could share pictures of cats.

27


28/40


(Zuckerman, 2008)

I argue that Web 2.0 is more useful when it is considered the confluence of three general

trends rather than any one specific factor.

The development of new technologies and services

Increased value derived from having such a large user base

A sea change in public attitudes towards the web

The exact origin of the term Web 2.0 can be traced to the technology and publishing

company OReilly. CEO Tim OReilly describes an exercise in which he and his staff

pondered the ramifications of the dot com crash which culminated in 2001 (OReilly,

2005). The team wondered why some companies had disappeared from the market

place, whilst others seem to be even more successful than before the crash. Using this as

the yardstick for measuring a successful company, the OReilly team outlined a

framework for a successful Web 2.0 company.

OReilly outlined seven headings which for them defined Web 2.0.

The web as a platform

Harnessing collective intelligence

Data is the next intel inside

End of the software release cycle

Lightweight programming methods

Software above the level of a single device

Rich user experiences

As is evident from these headings, OReilly was looking for sound investments, not

attempting to create a definition which could be applied to the structures of political

parties.

Some further work has been done to strengthen our understanding of Web 2.0. Most

notably Anderson who outlines and expands on the topic of Web 2.0 by outlining ideas

28


29/40


in a more academic way, in particular by stressing the importance of user generated

content and the importance of network effects in the Web 2.0 paradigm (Anderson 2007

a, Anderson 2007 b).

What Anderson highlights is that Web 2.0 is built upon the two way flow of

information, that users were now uploading content to the Web rather than simply

downloading information as they had done in the past. Tim Berners Lee argues that the

web has always been designed so that people can upload information and that web

pages have never been in the hands of an elite cadre of web content producers

(Anderson, 2007a). In this sense there is little that has changed from Web 1.0 and Web

2.0. What has changed however is the ease with which content is uploaded. It is no

longer necessary to have available web space, a domain name and a working knowledge

of html to contribute, but it can instead be done through simple interfaces such as social

networking sites or blog platforms. In many cases the necessity to own a computer has

even been taken out of the equation with services such as Twitter now completely

functional from a mobile phone.

For party networks the focus on user generated content expands the trend of greater andmore diverse sources of information available online. In addition to the web sites

considered by the Web 1.0 theorists, in Web 2.0 information is also available from

sources such as social networking profiles, RSS feeds, Twitter streams, and perhaps

most importantly of all, blogs, all of which are potentially used by groups as diverse as

news organisations, interest groups and even politically minded individuals. From this

perspective we can see Web 2.0 as continuing the existing trend for the web expanding

and diversifying the information available within the party network. In addition to more

information, we can also view these new technologies and services as further expanding

the possibilities for participation within the party. For instance, whereas web 1.0

primarily limited users to text based responses, services such as YouTube, Flickr and

AudioBoo, now allow comment in visual and audio forms.

The principal criticism of this aspect of Web 2.0 however rests with the issue of quality.

Keen has argued that despite the massive amounts of information available, the majority

of it is likely to be of low quality, for the most part produced by none-experts (Keen,

29


30/40


2008). Much in the same way as the Babel objection described above, this argument

claims that the majority of worthwhile information will be lost in the noise, drowned out

by a million voices all talking at once. Keen likens Web 2.0 to a thousand monkeys at a

thousand type writers, eventually they may produce the works of Shakespeare, but only

by luck, not by design. Fortunately however, the Web is full of tools which allow us to

filter out noise. Not only do there exist conventional search engines such as Alta Vista,

Bing and most well know of all, Google, but there is also an entire sub-culture on the

web devoted to recommending content to others. Services such as Digg, Delicious,

Technocrati et al are quintessential Web 2.0 services, harnessing the power of the crowd

to drive people towards the content that may be useful to them (Benkler, 2006). Further

more, we should avoid harking back to the days of the mass media as some kind of

utopia, comparing the Web 2.0 paradigm with the mass media as it was, motivated by

profit and dominated by a select minority of gatekeepers (Benkler, 2006). Web 2.0 in

comparison may be chaotic, but at it's heart it may also be less dominated by elite

interest and so may serve the public interest better.

The second aspect that Anderson raises is the importance of network effects, a term

borrowed from telecommunications which has much relevance to the realm of the web.For every new person that joins the network, the value of the network increase

exponentially as other users gain access to that person (Anderson 2007a). One example

of this is the recent expansion of social networking services (SNS). Having a presence

on a SNS is of little value if your friends are not also on the same service. Vice versa,

when a substantial body of your friends are on a particular SNS the motivation for the

individual to join becomes much greater as they will gain access to their friends. This

example continues in the context of the web. For every new person who connects to the

web and contributes information, the total value of the overall resources available over

the web increases.

So far I have described two distinct changes in the Web, the advent of new technologies

and services and the increase in the number of people world wide with web access. The

final change, I argue is the recognition of the web as a mainstream medium.

Going back to Putnam's response to the web we can recall how the web was viewed in

30


31/40


the beginning, a socially isolated medium populated by a technological elite. In contrast

today the web is at the very heart of our society, we socialise, carry out commerce, get

our news and work online. Additionally, all of our major institutions are online, from

political parties, to parliament to government departments. This change in perception is

difficult to measure, but is very noticeable. In this sense we can expect the Web to have

moved on considerably from the Web 1.0 understanding. At the most basic level, there

are more people online at the moment and the pariah status of the web in Web 1.0 has

been overturned as millions of new users have connected.

In summary, I argue that there are multiple facets of Web 2.0. It is not simply one thing,

but a combination of factors which have combined at a certain juncture resulting the

perception of a qualitatively different Web from what can be considered Web 1.0.

This new environment consists of:

New technologies and services such as Wikis, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube,

Google, much of their content based on user generated content and collaboration

An increase in the value of being online by virtue of the fact that there are somany others connected

A shift in the popular perception of the web from technological curiosity to

social necessity

By viewing Web 2.0 as a confluence of these three factors rather than attempting to

impose a strict taxonomy we can acknowledge that the potential for this kind of use has

always been present in the web, but not possible to exploit before now.

For political parties the impact of Web 2.0 is largely uncharted. Based on the tenants

above however we can see that in terms of the relationship between parties and

supporters, Web 2.0 seems set to reinforce trends uncovered in Web 1.0 literature.

The focus on user generated content can be seen as strengthening the role of

information online, principally by making the publishing of information considerably

easier through platforms such as blogs, SNS and YouTube. It is now possible for even

31


32/40


an inexperienced computer user to upload text, audio, images and video and then link

that content directly to a political party. Whereas Web 1.0 still retained barriers to entry,

these are all but gone in Web 2.0.

The new forms of co-operation offered by Web 2.0 can be viewed as an extension to the

trend of new forms of participation offered by Web 1.0. As well as the feasibility for

direct voting, Web 2.0 provides opportunities for collective working both implicitly in

the ease with which it allows the publication of content, and explicitly through tools

such as collaborative document management (wikis or the forthcoming Google Wave).

Web 2.0 is likely to provide more diverse opportunities to engage with political parties

than Web 1.0.

The final way in which Web 2.0 will likely impact party networks is the extent to which

it has bridged the credibility gap between the online and offline worlds. Where as Web

1.0 was seen as an alternate medium to the mainstream, Web 2.0 can be seen as a

medium in its own right, on a par or in some cases even surpassing conventional media

such as newspapers. Parties will likely come to view the web as as important as offline

media.

In combination, these three effects indicate that contained within the Web 2.0 ethos,

there is the potential to empower a party supporter in way not possible under Web 1.0,

or even under the mass party model. Given the ability to publish, comment, vote and

interact with others it seems that the relationship between parties and supporters is set to

alter significantly. It is of course still early days. Just as those who predicted

revolutionary change brought about by Web 1.0 were ultimately disappointed similar

predictions for Web 2.0 may be equally as unfounded at this point. As such, it is too

early to attempt to link Web 2.0 ideas to an overall increase in participation, but instead

it is appropriate to examine what opportunities are being created as a result of changes

brought about by emergence of Web 2.0. Specifically, this project intends to look at the

extent to which Web 2.0 ideas are influencing party online networks.

32


33/40


Conclusion

The literature to date portrays political parties as organisations which shift according to

changing social circumstance. Adapting as changing societal circumstances dictate and

reforming based on new types which offer better results. Web 1.0 seemingly did little to

alter the relationship between the party elite and the member/supporters, instead

mirroring the relationship established in the offline world. Despite having the potential

to break the media monopoly over political information and allow for new forms of

direct participation the overall impact has been negligible. As Margolis and Resnik

(2001) argue, it's politics as usual on web 1.0.

But the web isn't finished yet. The project which began as a way to store information for

physicists now stores information for the world, and increasingly, it harvests

information as well. Web 2.0, for all the media hype, has captured an emerging series of

trends. As well as new technologies and services Web 2.0 represents the kind of social

acceptability and societal importance that Web 1.0 never enjoyed. The web has gone

from the underground playground of a few 'nerds' to a major forum for all corners of

society.

Due to the only recent emergence of Web 2.0 ideas it is still too early to consider

questions of participation. Just as early studies of Web 1.0 found little if any benefit in

terms of encouraging new users to participate, a similar finding for Web 2.0 would be

likely. However, we can begin to speculate about how Web 2.0 ideas might begin to

shape the way political parties do things, specifically how Web 2.0 ideas might

influence parties online networks. Web 2.0 is likely to bring about new opportunities

for participation, currently these are likely to be limited to a small number of early

adopters, but ultimately these are the tools which would form the basis of any future

increase in member/supporter influence in parties.

Based on the literature review I have identified four research questions which will

address the influence of Web 2.0 in party networks.

1) How important is the party network to party elites and users?

33


34/40


This question is designed to assess the overall importance of the web as a tool for both

parties and users. One of the key ideas of Web 2.0 is that the web has gained credibility

as a medium as the number of web users has expanded and as such it is valuable to

understand how important both the party and the users feel that the network is. In

answering this question I intend to look at two sources of information:

Firstly unstructured interviews with party elites will explain party reaction to Web 2.0,

in particular how much weight is placed on the online sphere in policy making and

candidate selection.

The second portion of this question is how seriously users within the party network feel

their contributions are taken. It may well be the case that users feel that only lip service

is paid to their contributions. I intend to assess this using data gathered through a survey

of blog users which will be taking place over autumn 2009.

2) What sources of information are present within party online networks?

This question is designed to map the origins of information within the party network as

well as the prominence of individual sites. Party networks that are strongly influenced

by Web 2.0 ideas are likely to contain large amounts of user generated content in

prominent positions within the network. Networks which are weakly influenced by Web

2.0 ideas are likely to rely more heavily on information from party sources. Mapping

party networks will be central to answering this question. In part this can be achieved

through hyperlink analysis using tools such as Issue Crawler or VOSON. These tools

'crawl' web links, following html links and recording their destination, in this way it is

possible to create a map based on a few selected starting points. The crucial variable to

consider is the starting points, source URLs will largely determine what the crawler

uncovers.

Mapping a network in this way has limitations; in particular, it may be difficult to

penetrate many Web 2.0 platforms using this method. For instance, a web crawl would

not necessarily capture YouTube contributions or Facebook groups, which would have

34


35/40


to be catalogued separately. Additionally, the resultant network will not be exhaustive;

no analysis could hope to capture every related site to any political party. Instead, the

aim is to use a consistent methodology which allows the mapping of a representative

network from which to work from. Social network analysis can add more depth to the

network map by indicating which nodes are the most connected and therefore are likely

to be the most prominent within the network.

Based on this 'map' of each partys network it will then be possible to assess the

composition of each network by coding websites in a content analysis exercise that

would record variables including the web site origin and the disposition, either positive,

negative or neutral. In this way we should be able to understand how party online

networks are composed, what sources of information are present and where they are

found in the network.

3) What tools for participation are available within the party online network?

There is also a question of what kinds of participation are encouraged by Web 2.0 ideas.

Although there has been much written on deliberative forms of participation, it may bethe case that in established parties Web 2.0 ideas encourage the development of

discursive forms of participation such as the development of collaborative documents.

Again using the map of each party network and associated investigations of Web 2.0

services, I will investigate the websites present and opportunities within each for user

participation and what form it takes, whether directly democratic, or more discursive. In

addition we can look at who is instigating participation, is it members discussing the

party between themselves, at the behest of party elites in an officially sanctioned

discussion space, or in a space maintained by some sub party level faction or

organisation such as a local branch or interest group?

4) Are Web 2.0 ideas universal across party online networks?

Finally, I intend to undertake a comparative analysis of each of the parties covered in

order to assess the party specific factors which may be encouraging or discouraging the

35


36/40


use of Web 2.0 within the party. If there are differences in the influence of Web 2.0 ideas

this may be down to specific factors inherent in party ideology. If on the other hand

there is little difference between the parties there is a greater case for saying that Web

2.0 ideas are universal across party networks and will therefore impact all parties in a

similar way.

The questions above are based on the three key ways in which Web 2.0 ideas may

influence party networks:

More information, principally in the form of user generated content

New kinds of participation, either deliberative or discursive

An increase in the overall importance of the web as a medium

Overall these questions are designed to measure to what degree various party networks

have been shaped by Web 2.0 ideas and ultimately indicate to what degree Web 2.0 has

been embraced as a tool for encouraging supporter participation in political parties.

Based on these answers we can begin to speculate about the future extent to which Web

2.0 ideas will allow either parties or their supporters to redress the declining influence

of supporters in party life.

36


37/40


Bibliography

Anderson, P. 2007a. 'What is Web 2.0? ideas, technologies and implications for

education' JISC

Anderson, P. 2007b. 'All that glisters is not gold: web 2.0 and the librarian' in TheJournal of Librarianship and Information Science. 39(4) 195-198

Benkler, Y. 2006. 'The wealth of networks' London: Yale University Press

Bennett, L. 2003. 'Communicating global activism: strengths and vulnerabilities of

networked politics' in Information Communication & Society. 6(2):143-168

Berners-Lee, T. 1989. 'Information management: a proposal' available at

http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.htmlaccessed 24/07/09

Bimber, B. 2001. 'Information and political engagement in America' inPolitical

Research Quarterly. 54(1):53-67

Boyd, O. 2008. 'Differences in edemocracy partys eparticipation systems' in

Information polity. 13:167-188

Budge, I. 1996. 'The new challenge of direct democracy'. Cambridge: Policy Press

Castells, M. 1996. 'The rise of the networked society' Oxford, Blackwell

Chadwick, A. 2007. 'Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity' in

Political Communication 24(3):283-301

Cleaver, H. 1998. 'The Zapatista Effect: the internet and the rise of an alternative

political fabric' in The Journal of International Affairs. 51(2):621-640

Dalton, R. 'The decline of party identifications' in Dalton, R and Wattenberg, M. 'Parties

without partisans: political change in advanced industrial democracies'. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Dalton, R and Wattenberg, M. 2000. 'Unthinkable Democracy' in Dalton, R andWattenberg, M. 'Parties without partisans: political change in advanced industrial

democracies'. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Digennaro and Dutton. 2006. The internet and the public: online and offline political

participation in the UK inParliamentary Affairs 59(2)

Duverger, M. 1951. Political Parties London: Butler and Tanner

Gibson, R, Lusoli, W and Ward, S. 2005. 'Online participation in the UK: testing a

contextualised model of internet effects' inBritish Journal of Politics and International

Relations

37
http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.htmlhttp://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.htmlhttp://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html


38/40


Hara, N. 2009. Internet use for political mobilization inFirst Monday 13(7)

Heidar, K and Sagle, J. 2003. 'A decline of linkage? intra-party participation in Norway

1999-2000' inEuropean Journal of Political Research. 42: 761-786

Keen, A. 2008. 'The cult of the amateur' London: Nicholas Brealey

Katz, R and Mair, P. 1995. 'Changing models of party organisation and party

democracy: the emergence of the cartel party'.Party Politics. 1(5):5-28

Katz, R and Mair, P. 1992. 'The membership of political parties in European

democracies 1960-1990' inEuropean Journal of Political Research. 22:329-345

Khan, R and Kellner, D. 2004. 'New media and internet activism: from the battle of

Seattle to blogging' inNew Media and Society. 6(1):87-95

Kirchheimer, O. 1969. 'Politics law and social change: selected essays of Otto

Kirchheimer' London: Columbia University Press

Krueger, B. 2002. Assessing the potential of internet political participation in the

United States: A resource approach inAmerican Politics Research

Lamere, P. 2009. Inside the precision hack available at

http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/ accessed 28/07/09

Lawson, K. 1980. 'Political parties and linkage: a comparative perspective' London:Yale University Press

Lin, W and Dutton, W. 2003. The net effect in politics: the stop the overlay campaign

in Los Angeles inParty Politics 9(1):124-136

Lipow, A & Seyd, P. 1996. 'The politics of anti-partyism' inParliamentary Affairs.

1996: 273-284

Lofrgren, K and Smith, C. 2003. 'Political parties and democracy in the information age'

in Gibson, R Nixon, P and Ward, S (eds) 'Political parties and the internet: net gain?'

London: Routeledge

Lusoli, W and Ward, S. 2004. Digital rank and file: Party activists perceptions and the

use of the internet inBritish Journal of Politics and International Relations. 6:453-470

Margetts, H. 2001. 'The Cyber Party' Paper to workshop 'The causes and consequences

of organisational innovation in European political parties' ECPR Joint Sessions of

Workshops Grenoble, 6-11 April 2001.

Margolis, M and Resnik, D. 2000. 'Politics as usual: the cyberspace revolution'

London:Sage

38
http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/15/inside-the-precision-hack/


39/40


Mass, P and Bizen, I. 2001. 'Party membership in twenty European democracies 1980-

2000'Party Politics. 7(1):5-21

McKenzie, R. 1965. 'British political parties' London: Mercury Books

Michaels, R. 1962, 1915. Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical

tendencies of modern democracy New York: The Free Press

Negroponte, N. 1995. 'Being Digital' Reading: Hodder & Stoughton

Nie, N and Erbring, L. 2000. 'Internet and Society: a preliminary report' Stanford

Institute for the quantitative study of society.

Norris, P. 2001. 'The Digital Divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the

internet world wide' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

O'Reilly,T. 2005. 'What is Web 2.0?' available at http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-

web-20.htmlaccessed 24/07/09

Pickerill, J. 2006. 'Radical politics and the net' inParliamentary Affairs. 59(2):266-282

Putnam, R. 2000. 'Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community'

New York: Simon and Schuster

Rheingold, H. 1992. 'The virtual community: homesteading of the electronic frontier'

London: MIT Press

Rommele, A. 2003. 'Political parties, party communication and new information

communication technologies' inParty Politics 9(1):7-20

Padro-Solanet, A .2008. The s6trategic adoption of party organisation to new

information communication technologies: A study of Catalan and Spanish parties Draft

paper, forthcoming.

Scarrow, S. 'Parties without members: Party organization in a changing electoral

environment' in Dalton, R and Wattenberg, M. 'Parties without partisans: political

change in advanced industrial democracies'. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Scott, A and Street, J 'From media politics to e-protest: the use of popular culture and

new media in parties and social movements' in Information, Communication andSociety. 3(2):215-240

Seyd, P and Whitely, P. 2004. 'British Party Members: an overview' inParty Politics.10(4): 355-366

Street, J. 1997. Remote control: Politics technology and electronic democracy in

European Journal of Communication 12(27):27-42

Sunstein, C. 2007. 'Republic.com 2.0' Princeton: Princeton University Press

39
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlhttp://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlhttp://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlhttp://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlhttp://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html


40/40


Time. 2009. The worlds most influential person is available at

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.htmlaccessed 28/07/09

Webb, P. Farrell, D and Holliday, I. 2002. Political parties in advanced industrialdemocracies Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wellman, B. Salaff, J. Dimitrova, D. Garton, L. Guila, M. Haythornwaite, C. 1996.

Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework and virtual

community inAnnual Review of Sociology 22:213-138

Wring, D, Horrocks, I. 2001. 'Virtual Hype? the transformation of political parties' in

Axford, B Huggins, R (eds). 'New Media an

lit review 1st draft - june 2009

Documents