Digitally-Mediated Political Participation in a Comparative Perspective
Table of contents
Share
Metrics
Digitally-Mediated Political Participation in a Comparative Perspective
Annotation
PII
S086904990006561-9-1
DOI
10.31857/S086904990006561-9
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Susanna Pshizova 
Occupation: Associate professor, Faculty of Public Administration, Lomonosov Moscow State University
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow State University
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Edition
Pages
47-59
Abstract

Against the background of growing tensions in relations between the East and the West, between EU and US, between Russia and its Western "partners", one can observe the obvious similarity of some tendencies in the domestic political development of the opposing countries. Old and new, liberal and procedural (or electoral) democracies are united today by the process of the professionalization of political activity and the mass voter' reaction to it, the legitimacy crisis of political elites and the growth of populist practices. Countries with so different previous political experience have same ground for the development of these phenomena – digitalization of the political participation and, as a result, the transformation of the entire system of political communications. Moreover, due to the specifics of its historical development Russia in many aspects has been at the forefront of these processes. Therefore, in my opinion, the dominant ideas about the “catching up development” of Russian capitalism and democracy should be supplemented with one more thesis: our country is not lagging behind, but ahead of developed liberal democracies in terms of the implementation of the consequences (including negative ones) of stormy entry of digital networks into politics. This means that our experience in the field is particularly interesting not only for us or for “young democracies” like us, but also for the so-called “old”, well-established systems based on the principal of popular sovereignty. To learn this experience allows seeing and evaluating the potential threats brought by the digitalization of public space more clearly. In addition, after the end of the "transit" era (when the thesis of the historical inevitability of the development of post-communist countries following authoritative Western models, completely dominated in the political science) a theoretical deadlock arose. The conceptualization of the influence of modern digital communications on the production of political action can be one of the tools to fill this theoretical gap. The need to develop such tools for analyzing the public sphere of all kinds of modern democracies is strongly felt in political science.

Keywords
political communications, Russian politics, political participation, digital technology, modern democracies, digital networks, social networks, postcommunist countries
Date of publication
26.09.2019
Number of purchasers
19
Views
206
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
800 RUB / 16.0 SU
All issues for 2019
4224 RUB / 30.0 SU
1

References

1. Achkasov V.A. (2015) Tranzitologiya – nauchnaya teoriya ili ideologicheskiy konstrukt? [Transitology – Scientific Theory or Ideological construct?]. POLIS, no. 1, pp. 30–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2015.01.03.

2. Allen P. (2013) Professionalisation of Politics Makes our Democracy Less Representative and Less Accessible. Democratic Audit UK. 11.09.2013 (http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/09/11/the-professionalisation-of-politics-makes-our-democracy-less-representative-and-less-accessible/).

3. Benkler Y., Faris R., Roberts H. (2018) Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

4. Bennett W.L., Segerberg A. (2012) The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication & Society. Vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 739–768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661.

5. Castells M. (2017) Vlast' kommunikatsii [Communication Power]. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola Ekonomiki Publ.

6. Chadwick A. (2017) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

7. Esser F., Stromback J. (eds.) (2014) Mediatization of Politics. Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137275844.

8. Gibson R., Rommele A. (2009) Measuring the Professionalization of Political Campaigning. Party Politics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 265–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809102245.

9. Gutorov V.A., Tarasov I.N. (2018) Postkommunizm v institucional'nom, ideologicheskom i kommunikativnom izmereniyah: kriticheskie zametki (I) [Post-Communism in Institutional, Ideological and Communicative Dimensions: Critical Notes]. POLIS, no. 3, pp. 60–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.05.

10. Hersh E. (2015) Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

11. Hilbert M. (2016) Big Data for Development: A Review of Promises and Challenges. Development Policy Review, vol. 34, no 1, pp. 135–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12142.

12. Katz R.S., Mair P. (2018) Democracy and the Cartelization of Political Parties. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

13. Kollmorgen R. (2013) Theories of Postcommunist Transformation: Approaches, Debates, and Problems of Theory Building in the Second Decade of Research. Studies of Transition States and Societies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 88–105 (https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-365213).

14. Kuznetsov G.S., Sokolova E.N. (2018) Sovremennyy tekhnologicheskiy populizm. Strategicheskii doklad [Modern technological populism. Strategic report]. Moscow: Ekspertnyi institut sotsial'nykh issledovaniy [Expert Institute of Social Research] (http://eisr.ru/upload/iblock/58a/58ae0615582c1bdec742e467 b3160149.pdf).

15. McKune S., Ahmed Sh. (2010) Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age. The Contestation and Shaping of Cyber Norms Through China’s Internet Sovereignty Agenda. International Journal of Communication, vol. 12, pp. 35–55.

16. Makarenko B.I. (2008) Postkommunisticheskie strany: nekotorye itogi transformacii [Post-Communist Countries: Some Results of the Transformation]. Politiya, vol. 3, no. 50, pp. 105–125.

17. Matveichev O.A. (2018) Etapy stanovleniya i razvitiya rynka politicheskih tekhnologii v Rossii i ego perspektivy [Stages of Formation and Development of the Political Technologies' Market and Its Prospects in Russia]. POLIS, no. 2, pp. 82–99. DOI: https://doi.org/0.17976/jpps/2018.02.07.

18. Mel'vil' A. YU. (2015) “Krizis demokratii” i “zavisshie” demokratizatsii [“The crisis of democracy" and "the stuck" democratizations]. Rossijskaya politicheskaya nauka: Idei, kontseptsii, metody [Russian Political Science: Ideas, Concepts, Methods]. Moscow: Aspekt Press, pp. 272–289.

19. Michaelsen M., Glasius M. (2018) Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, vol. 12, pp. 88–94 (https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8536).

20. Negrine R., Holtz-Bacha Chr., Mancini P., Papathanassopoulos S. (eds.) (2007) The Professionalisation of Political Communication (Changing Media, Changing Europe). Bristol: Intellect Ltd.

21. Negrine R., Lilleker D. (2002) The Professionalization of Political Communication. Continuities and Change in Media Practices. European Journal of Communication, vol. 17, no. 3, September, pp. 305–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1177/0267323102017003688.

22. Partiinaya organizatsiya i partiinaya konkurentsiya v “nedodemokraticheskikh” rezhimakh (2012) [Party organization and party competition in “non-democratic” regimes]. Eds. Korgunyuk Yu. G., Meleshkina E.Yu., Podvintsev O., Shashkova Ya. Moscow: ROSSPEN.

23. Pshizova S. (2015) Behind the Backs of Public Politicians: Political Advisers in Russian Politics. International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 28–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.949756.

24. Pshizova S. (2000) Democracy and Political Market in Comparative Perspective (1). POLIS, no. 2, pp. 30–44.

25. Pshizova S. (2013) Mozhno li upravlyat' demokratiei? [Is It Possible to Regulate Democracy?] (I). POLIS, no. 6, pp. 171–183 (http://www.politstudies.ru/files/File/2013/6/14.pdf).

26. Pshizova S.N. (2000) Parties in the Post-Soviet Space: A Unique Response to the Context or the Future of the Western Model? Abstracts of Papers Presented at the XVIII World Congress of the International Political Science Association. Quebec, Canada. 1-5 August 2000. Special Number of the International Political Science Abstracts, vol. 51, no. 4. Supplement.

27. Pshizova S. (2016) Politicheskiy protsess v Rossii nachala XXI veka v svete sovremennykh kontseptsii “krizisa demokratii” [The Political Process in Russia at the Beginning of the XXI Century in the Light of the Modern Concepts of a “Democracy Crises”]. Krizisy v sfere politiki i gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: mezhdistsiplinarnyi analiz [Crises in politics and public administration: an interdisciplinary analysis]. Moscow: Argamak-Media Publ., pp. 206–230.

28. Schmidt V.A. (2008) Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 303–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342.

29. Schmitt C. (2009) Duhovno-istoricheskoe sostoyanie sovremennogo parlamentarizma. Predvaritel'nye zamechaniya (O protivopolozhnosti parlamentarizma i demokratii) [The Historical and Spiritual State of Modern Parliamentarism. Tentative remarks. (On the counter position of parliamentarism and democracy)]. Sociologicheskoe obozrenie, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 6–16 (https://sociologica.hse.ru/data/2011/03/30/1211853314/8_2_2.pdf).

30. Sergeyev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Petrov K.E. (2017) Politika “meinstrima” i ee al'ternativy v sovremennom zapadnom mire: na puti ot mirovogo ekonomicheskogo krizisa k “nevozmozhnoy politike?” [The Policy of “Mainstream” and Its Alternatives in the Modern Western World: on the Way from the World Economic Crisis to “Impossible Politics?”]. POLIS, no. 3, pp. 8–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.03.02.