IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v8y2020i4p16-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Platform Party between Digital Activism and Hyper-Leadership: The Reshaping of the Public Sphere

Author

Listed:
  • Emiliana De Blasio

    (Department of Political Science, LUISS University, Italy)

  • Lorenzo Viviani

    (Department of Political Science, University of Pisa, Italy)

Abstract

The so-called crisis of representation has formed the theoretical framework of many studies on media and democracy of the past thirty years. Many researches have highlighted the crisis of legitimacy and credibility of the ‘traditional’ parties (Katz & Mair, 2018) and communication was considered, at the same time, one of the causes of acceleration towards post-representative politics (Keane, 2013) but also an indispensable tool for re-connecting citizens to politics. Various phenomena have developed within this framework: a) the birth of political aggregations as a result of mobilization in the digital ecosystem; b) the development of digital platforms for democratic participation; c) the birth of parties defined as ‘digital’ or ‘platform’; and d) the growing centrality of digital political activism, both as a phenomenon within the digital communicative ecosystem (also in the context of social media) and as a result of the transformation of social movements. This article studies the role of platform parties as a space for the emergence of authoritarian tendencies (hyper-leadership) but also as an organizational opportunity for the development of new forms of digital activism. In particular, the article presents a research on the use of digital platforms (and their political and organizational consequences) by political parties in Italy, France, and Spain. The study shows the relationships between the evolution of digital ecosystems and the way in which political organization is organised, also highlighting how the new forms of mobilization and aggregation have opened up different yet interconnected public spaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Emiliana De Blasio & Lorenzo Viviani, 2020. "Platform Party between Digital Activism and Hyper-Leadership: The Reshaping of the Public Sphere," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 16-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v8:y:2020:i:4:p:16-27
    DOI: 10.17645/mac.v8i4.3230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/3230
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3230?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Merkel, Wolfgang, 2004. "Embedded and defective democracies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 11(5), pages 33-58.
    2. Emiliana De Blasio & Michele Sorice, 2018. "Populism between direct democracy and the technological myth," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emiliana De Blasio & Marianne Kneuer & Wolf Schünemann & Michele Sorice, 2020. "The Ongoing Transformation of the Digital Public Sphere: Basic Considerations on a Moving Target," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 1-5.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emiliana De Blasio & Lorenzo Viviani, 2020. "Platform Party between Digital Activism and Hyper-Leadership: The Reshaping of the Public Sphere," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 16-27.
    2. Olga I. Timofeeva, 2022. "Methodology and Results of Measuring the Transparency of Russian Regional Budgets," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 6, pages 44-58, December.
    3. Dieter Fuchs & Edeltraud Roller, 2018. "Conceptualizing and Measuring the Quality of Democracy: The Citizens’ Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 22-32.
    4. Michal Madr, 2016. "Economic Development as a Factor of Democratisation: Evidence from Post-Socialist Economies," MENDELU Working Papers in Business and Economics 2016-70, Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    5. Stroh, Alexander & Elischer, Sebastian & Erdmann, Gero, 2012. "Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes: A Comparative Perspective," GIGA Working Papers 197, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    6. Yuriy V. Belousov, 2022. "Transparent Budget in the System of Public Administration," Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal, Financial Research Institute, Moscow 125375, Russia, issue 4, pages 79-91, August.
    7. Murat Somer & Jennifer McCoy, 2019. "Transformations through Polarizations and Global Threats to Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 681(1), pages 8-22, January.
    8. Gabriela Lotta & Roberto Pires & Michael Hill & Marie Ostergaard Møller, 2022. "Recontextualizing street‐level bureaucracy in the developing world," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 3-10, February.
    9. Berg, Sebastian & Hofmann, Jeanette, 2021. "Digital democracy," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23.
    10. Sonja Grimm & Okka Lou Mathis, 2018. "Democratization via aid? The European Union’s democracy promotion in the Western Balkans 1994–2010," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 163-184, March.
    11. Lee, Dongwon & Min, Sujin, 2021. "Defective democracy and the political budget cycle," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 947-961.
    12. Céline Azémar & Rodolphe Desbordes, 2009. "Public Governance, Health and Foreign Direct Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 18(4), pages 667-709, August.
    13. Mariam Mufti, 2018. "What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(2), pages 112-119.
    14. Wahman, Michael & Basedau, Matthias, 2015. "Electoral Rentierism? The Cross-National and Subnational Effect of Oil on Electoral Competitiveness in Multiparty Autocracies," GIGA Working Papers 272, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    15. Cengiz Erisen & Evren Celik Wiltse, 2017. "Dividedness, Institutions and Economic Performance: A Cross-National Analysis of Democratic Stability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 1145-1161, July.
    16. Schlumberger, Oliver, 2021. "Puzzles of political change in the Middle East: Political liberalisation, authoritarian resilience and the question of systemic change," IDOS Discussion Papers 5/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    17. Romy Escher & Melanie Walter-Rogg, 2018. "Does the Conceptualization and Measurement of Democracy Quality Matter in Comparative Climate Policy Research?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 117-144.
    18. George Asimakopoulos & Hera Antonopoulou & Konstantinos Giotopoulos & Constantinos Halkiopoulos, 2025. "Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Democratic Processes and Citizen Participation," Societies, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-41, February.
    19. Kopeček Vincenc & Hoch Tomáš & Baar Vladimír, 2016. "De Facto States and Democracy: The Case of Abkhazia," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 32(32), pages 85-104, June.
    20. Giebler, Heiko & Werner, Annika, 2020. "Cure, Poison or Placebo? The Consequences of Populist and Radical Party Success for Representative Democracy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(3), pages 293-306.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v8:y:2020:i:4:p:16-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.