La finalidad de la prueba pericial de cotejo de firmas

RQ 2.1: Distinguishing between political communication and political mobilisation, how do the contributions of Facebook vary in relation to these two different typologies of political activity?

Figure 10 – The Contributions of Facebook to Political Communication and Mobilisation: Main Findings

IPs slightly more active than BPs, particularly on Facebook, in both political communication and mobilisation activities Facebook, Political Communication and Mobilisation Political communication activities

are less resource- expensive than political mobilisation ones (e.g.,

less demanding in terms of time) Samples’

higher participation in political communication activities than in mobilisation ones – moderate vs limited or

no participation)

The contributions to the mobilisation dimension tend to remain

limited to politically active participants

Scepticism about the efficacy of political initiatives and disenchantment

towards the political establishment, particularly in

the IS

Less politically active participants tend to employ

Facebook mainly for political communication

activities A key tool in

activists’ repertoires

Section 4.1 highlighted a conceptual weakness common in Internet and political participation studies, namely the failure to grasp the multidimensionality of political participation. In order to address this limitation and to assess whether the contributions of Facebook to political participation vary in relation to different types of political activities, two dimensions of political participation have been conceptualised in this thesis: the political communication dimension and the political mobilisation dimension (see Section 2.1.1). The first step in assessing potential variations in the impact of Facebook on political communication and mobilisation was comparing the samples’ scores relating to these two dimensions.

Table 9 – Political Mobilisation and Communication: Descriptive Statistics*

British Sample Italian Sample

Median IQR Median IQR

Facebook Political Mobilisation 5 5 10 9

Facebook Political Communication 10 10 15 10

Internet Political Mobilisation 5 5 7 6

Internet Political Communication 11 8 12 8

Offline Political Mobilisation 5 3 8 7

Offline Political Communication 11 8 13 9

* 5 (Never), 10 (Rarely), 15 (Sometimes), 20 (Often), 25 (Very often).

Figure 11 – Facebook, Internet and Offline Political Communication and Mobilisation: Box Plots 5 (Never) 10 (Rarely) 15 (Sometimes) 20 (Often) 25 (Very Often)

The results displayed in Table 9 and Figure 11 show that:

 The participatory discrepancy between BPs and IPs which resulted in relation to Facebook, Internet and offline political participation – with IPs slightly more active than BPs, particularly on Facebook – was repeated even when a distinction was made between political mobilisation and political communication.

 With regards to the usage of the various considered channels (i.e., Facebook, the Internet, and the offline world), as with the general measures of political participation, Facebook remained the most used channel for both communication and mobilisation activities in the IS, and the least used one in the BS. It has to be noted that the differences between the channels in terms of usage were minor.  Both samples engaged more often in political communication activities than political

mobilisation ones.

 The BS displayed the lowest possible levels of political mobilisation in each considered channel. In relation to these measures IPs were slightly more active than BPs, but their participation remained limited. IPs also exhibited a greater range of scores than BPs.

 With respect to political communication, BPs demonstrated limited participation on all three considered channels. Even if the differences among the three channels were minimal, Facebook emerged as the least used political communication channel in the BS. IPs displayed moderate levels of participation in relation to this measure.

With regards to the differences between the political communication and mobilisation dimensions, the samples’ higher scores on the political communication scales could suggest that Facebook contributes more to this particular dimension. However, considering that the tendency to engage more often in this type of activity was replicated in the other channels of participation, this notion was further explored in the qualitative phase.

The thematic analysis of the interviews proposed two explanations for the quantitative findings. The first is that participants engaged more often in political communication activities because they required fewer resources. Among the various resources, time appeared to be the one impacting most upon political participation.

[Lack of time inhibiting participation]

Luigi – IP: “I would like to participate in political initiatives but [it] would mean committing myself in a way I cannot afford nowadays in terms of time.”

Luca – IP: “[With regards to my limited political participation] it is a question of time management – if I have free time I prefer to spend it doing something else.”

Tracey – BP: “I don’t know whether it is just a time thing, whether I just haven’t had time or I didn’t know that those things were on or available for me”

The second explanation for the higher levels of participation in political communication activities is the samples’ scepticism towards the efficacy of political initiatives such as protests or rallies.

[Low efficacy of political initiatives]:

Callum – BP: “When [the government] makes decisions that I disagree with … I don’t think there is very much I can do about them … So I suppose in a sense I feel that marching won’t really make a difference.”

Alessandro – IP: “I do not participate because, in one way or another, people come off worse. [The police always cause] trouble so people [won’t] speak of the real problem but of the incidents which happened during the protest. In this way, the initiative becomes useless.”

Rosaria – IP: “I believe that a march cannot change things, therefore … we should probably try to find other ways, rather than protests, marches or sit-ins.”

The issue of the efficacy of political initiatives is strictly linked to citizens’ perception of the responsiveness of political institutions to their actions, which, in turn, relates to the issues of political disenchantment and democratic deficit (see Section 1.2). Qualitative data strongly confirmed the existence of a detachment from traditional political institutions and institutionalised forms of political participation, in particular in the IS. This phenomenon could be one of the reasons behind participants’ scepticism towards the efficacy of political initiatives, and their low levels of participation in mobilisation related activities.

[Detachment from traditional politics]:

Vincent – BP: “We get politicians and traditional media talking about apathy [but] I don’t think that people aren’t interested in politics or even that they are apathetic. I think that most people feel they don’t have a good choice in elections so they make the decision not to vote, even if they are quite engaged in politics themselves, because a lot of people don’t identify with any particular party.”

Rachel – BP: “Politics has become a dirty word … joining a political party has become a discredited thing ironically at the same time … membership of Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth, national trusts and all those kinds of organisations has gone up. I think that to a very large extent people are expressing their politics through non-party political organisations.”

Mario – IP: “I feel strongly detached from institutional politics … it is a common feeling, the so-called anti-politics, which in my opinion is not really anti-politics but rather a disaffection towards the political class.”

Raffaella – IP: “I am not very eager about politics because in Italy wherever you turn corruption comes up.”

Luca – IP: “I cannot identify my [political] ideas with current movements [and parties] and it is not worth participating in activities other than evaluation, information-gathering, etc.”

The detachment between participants and political institutions – evident in both samples but especially in the IS – which emerged in the interviews was corroborated by the quantitative samples’ composition in terms of party affiliation – with 46% of IPs and 33% of BPs claiming not to support any parties or movements (see Appendix C, Figures C5 and C6) – and the quantitative scores on the political engagement index. Political engagement was evaluated in the present research through five measures: political interest, political knowledge, partisanship, external and internal political efficacy (see Section 4.6.1, Table 2).

Table 10 – Political Engagement: Descriptive Statistics*

British Sample Italian Sample

Median IQR Median IQR

Political Engagement 16 5 15 5

Political Interest _{4 2 4 2}

Partisanship _{2 3 1 3}

Political Knowledge _{4 1 4 2}

External Political Efficacy _{3 1 2 2}

Internal Political Efficacy _{4 2 3 2}

*Political Engagement index: 5 (None), 10 (Low), 15 (Moderate), 20 (High), 25 (Very high) Measures of Political Engagement: 1 (None), 2 (Low), 3 (Moderate), 4 (High), 5 (Very high).

Figure 12 – Measures of Political Engagement: Bar Charts

As displayed in Table 10 and Figure 12:

 Both samples presented very similar levels of political engagement in terms of scores and distribution, with the BS slightly more politically engaged than the IS.  In both samples, and particularly in the IS, the scores for partisanship and external

political efficacy were lower than the ones for the other measures forming the political engagement index.

1 (None) 2 (Low) 3 (Moderate) 4 (High) 5 (Very High)

Among the measures composing the political engagement index, partisanship and external political efficacy (see Section 2.1.2 for a definition) are arguably the measures that best reflect the relationships between individuals, government, and political parties. The samples’ lower scores on such measures confirmed the detachment between participants and political institutions. Considering this political disenchantment – which surfaced even more strongly in the interviews – and the costs (i.e., required resources) of mobilisation activities, qualitative data indicated that the contributions of Facebook to the mobilisation dimension tend to be limited to politically active individuals, with less politically active citizens employing this SNS mainly for political communication activities.

[More communication than mobilisation]:

Vincent – BP: “Mostly [Facebook] helps people to get information. People can form networks of friends with similar views and … can share information so much easier.”

Ciro – IP: “[On Facebook] there is information but not much mobilisation.”

Martina – IP: “[Facebook appears to be more useful] in terms of communication. I don’t know to what extent it can lead to the involvement in a political campaign … There are people who participate politically through Facebook. They engage in political discussion, but then they don’t go beyond their PCs. It is a huge step to pass from there to a square.”

With respect to the contributions of Facebook to the mobilisation dimension of political participation, interviews with British and Italian activists (i.e., individuals who displayed high levels of political mobilisation) attested to the relevance of Facebook in activists’ political repertoires. In both samples activists stressed how Facebook has become a central, sometimes primary, tool for the organisation of political initiatives, a tool particularly suitable to single-issue campaigning. In addition, some participants commented on the capacity this SNS has to boost their mobilisation by exposing them to more information on political initiatives. This information was often related to local rather than national events, reaching them through grassroots channels, thus bypassing traditional political institutions such as parties or trade unions.

[Growing relevance of Facebook in activists’ repertoires]:

Alastair – BP: “[Facebook] has become a more an integral part of a campaign. When I was involved in one election campaign, even few years ago, it was very traditional, whereas as soon as more recent campaigns happened the first thing we did was to assign a social media person so I think it has become an integral part of the campaign.”

Mario – IP: “Facebook has become the main communication channel [for activists] and many other tools used in the past … have lost their importance.”

Francesca – IP: “[Within activist groups] Facebook has become the main means of communication – also because you can use it on mobiles as well as on computers, it is the fastest and cheapest method of communication.”

[Promoting grassroots single-issue mobilisation]:

Vincent – BP: “[Facebook] gives more power to ordinary people. Maybe 20 years ago most of this stuff was done in a formal party political way or through trade unions. Facebook has given much more ability to ordinary people who aren’t affiliated to any bureau organisation to organise things for themselves, to communicate and to get on. So politics, political organisation has become more of a grassroots thing … On Facebook people organise more at the grassroots level [and] on single-issue subjects … and less along the parties’ political lines.”

Rachel – BP: “Friends of Union Terrace Gardens which is a group set up to protect a Victorian Central Garden in central Aberdeen: [this] organisation largely started up on Facebook and as a Facebook group … we set up a Facebook page and invite people to it, and that sort of Facebook page has remained our major channel of communication.”

Tracey – BP: “I am actually involved with an asthma charity in the UK which is quite concerned to get asthma recognised by more members of parliament and health officials. I am involved in petitions on that side … and I think that [Facebook] was definitely very helpful with the campaign because it enabled us to reach far more people”.

Raffaella – IP: “I am part of an association that organises events in order to improve the tourism in our town … The local leader of the 5 Stars Movement … created a Facebook group [which became a message-board for our town] … Our association organises events and through the Facebook group we keep in touch with each other and promote our initiatives... Everything started on Facebook.”

[More information on political initiatives]:

Hazel – BP: “Before Facebook I wouldn’t have known that [political] meetings were happening, so I wouldn’t have known to have an opportunity to attend so I have got more involved.”

Francesca – IP: “In certain ways I participate more [politically because of Facebook], in the way that I get to know about certain events … so even if I don’t leave the house for five days, through Facebook I get to know if there is a political initiative happening.”

[Bypassing traditional mobilisation channels]:

Vincent – BP: “[Before Facebook] it was difficult [to get to know about political initiatives] because if you weren’t a member of some organisation, if you weren’t a member of a trade union or a political party, it could only be pot-luck really if you had found out there was some sort of rally.”

Luca – IP: “Probably [without Facebook I wouldn’t have known about many political initiatives], in particular events happening locally ... It would have been much harder to get this information through other channels. [On Facebook] information comes to you even if you don’t have a direct link with the [political] initiative ... [Facebook] is certainly one of the most powerful tools in creating a link between initiatives and people”

When discussing their usage of Facebook for political purposes, both British and Italian activists stressed the relationship between Facebook and offline participation, describing political activity on Facebook as rooted in and supporting their offline activity.

[Interdependence between Facebook and offline political participation]:

Mario – IP: “[Facebook] participation is the cause, the organisation, while the effect is offline participation.”

Francesca – IP: “I think that Facebook supports political entities which already exist ... the online cannot exist without the offline, while the offline could survive without the online.”

Antonio – IP: “I could not engage in politics only on Facebook or online, but also I could not engage in politics using only the old methods … I think that Facebook is a very useful tool, in certain cases essential, but not sufficient on its own … Without offline organisation, including small practical things such as requesting a square [for a rally], printing the flyers, organising a press conference, etc. … [online activism] cannot work.” Hazel – BP: “[I use Facebook to promote offline political initiatives]. I have created [Facebook] events for next Saturday … trying to make local people aware of the dangers of the privatisation of the NHS and how they can get involved locally.”

In conclusion, as was the case for the more general measures of political participation considered in the previous chapter, so in relation to political communication and mobilisation, IPs were slightly more active than BPs, particularly on Facebook. Both samples engaged more often in political communication activities than in mobilisation ones – moderate vs limited or no participation –, a trend confirmed in all three considered participation channels. The qualitative data suggested two main reasons behind such a difference. The first is that political communication activities are less resource-expensive (e.g., less demanding in terms of time) than the ones falling within the mobilisation dimension. The second reason is the scepticism shown by BPs and IPs towards the efficacy of political initiatives, with participants – in particular IPs – expressing disenchantment and distrust towards the political establishment and doubting its responsiveness to their actions.

The qualitative data revealed that, given the costs in terms of resources and perception of the efficacy of mobilisation activities, the contributions of Facebook to the mobilisation dimension tend to remain limited to participants who are already politically active, with less politically active participants employing this SNS mainly for political communication activities. Facebook emerged as a key tool in activists’ political repertoires, often replacing other online platforms and offline methods used to communicate, organise and promote political initiatives.

5.2.2 Research Question 2.2 – Facebook and the consumption of political