Twitter as a security device : a single-case study on Geert Wilders' use of Twitter during the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections

(1)

1

Twitter as a security device

A single-case study on Geert Wilders’ use of Twitter during the 2017 Dutch

parliamentary elections

Picture by Yordi Dam

Author: Melanie Schnezler

Master Political Science: International Relations Research Project: European Security Politics Supervisor: Rocco Bellanova

Second reader: Marieke de Goede Student number: 11234839

Date: June 2017 Words: 20.237

(2)

2

Explanation of the cover photo

This photo was taken by Yordi Dam and used in the newspaper article written by Clara van de Wiel for the Nieuw Rotterdamse Courant (NRC) named “Hoe Wilders via Twitter de revolutie voorbereidt – [own translation] How Wilders is preparing the revolution throug Twitter” (van de Wiel 2017). The photo was taken from Geert Wilders while tweeting in the parliament, and it illustrates of how much importance Twitter is to Wilders.

(3)

3

Abstract

Today over 300 million people in the world use Twitter to send out messages about their personals views, opinions and experiences. Amongst them are many Dutch politicians. Even though the platform was originally created for communication purposes, today it is often used for the promotion of political ideas and opinions. Geert Wilders, party leader of the Dutch Freedom Party; Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), demonstrates this by regularly referring to his political stances in his tweets. The political importance of the platform is however often been overlooked. This research argues for Twitters’ political importance by analyzing Geert Wilders’ use of Twitter, for the performance of security, during the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections. The research uses the security practices theory of Amicelle et al. to emphasize the importance that devices have on the outcome of security practices. Amicelle et al.’s angle on devices, permits us to analyze the socio-technical characteristics of Twitter contribute to Wilders’ performance of security. By defining these characteristics and comparing them to those of other forms of speech acts, the thesis shows the uniqueness of Twitter. By exploring Wilders’ social disposition towards the platform and the context in which his tweets are best considered, the thesis gives the reader a full understanding of Wilders’ way of using Twitter for security purposes and of the political power it is able to have. The research concludes that Twitter, when used for security purposes, can be considered an important tool for the promotion of Wilders’ security visions.

(4)

4

List of Abbreviation

CDA Christen-Democratisch Appèl (own translation: Christian Democratic Appeal)

EU European Union

IR International Relations

MP Member of Parliament

NRC Nieuw Rotterdamse Courant

PVV Partij voor de Vrijheid (own translation: Freedom Party)

SMS Short Message Service

US United States

VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (own translation: People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy)

(5)

5

List of Tables

Table.1 General structure of thesis’ analysis chapter [own table]..………..31

Table 2. An overview of Wilders’ tweets [own table]...43

Table 3. An overview of Wilders’ parliamentary speeches [own table]....……….48

List of Figures

Figure 1. Left: The scientific method of research: inductive and deductive..………25

Figure 1. Right: The scientific method adopted with variables from this research……..25

Figure 2. Results of the Dutch 2017 parliamentary election……….…...54

Figure 3. Graphic on the polls between October 2016 till April 2017………...56

List of Pictures

Picture 1. Screen capture of Geert Wilders’ tweet, posted on 07-12-2016…………...8

Picture 2. Picture of Twitter sketch by Jack Dorsey………...…...……9

Picture 3. Screen capture of Geert Wilders’ tweet, posted on 10-12-2016...……....34

Picture 4. Screen capture of Geert Wilders’ tweet, posted on 07-12-2017………....35

Picture 5. Screen capture of Geert Wilders’ tweet, posted on 05-12-2016………..45

Picture 6. Screen capture of Geert Wilders’ retweet, posted on 20-02-2017……….46

Picture 7. Parliamentary question of Geert Wilders, sent on 28-03-2017………..49

(6)

6

1. Introduction

Picture 1. Screen caption of Geert Wilders’ tweet on Islamic immigration, posted on 07-12-2016.

The picture above (picture 1.) shows a Twitter message, also known as a tweet, from Geert Wilders’ Twitter account approximately three months before the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, held on the 15th of March. This direct and arguably harsh language in his tweets is not uncommon when scrolling through the Twitter page of the party leader of the PVV, who’s party became the second largest party of the Netherlands winning 20 out of 150 seats in parliament. Wilders’ use of Twitter has not gone unnoticed by the media. Headers like “Geert Wilders most influential on Twitter” and “How Wilders prepares a revolution through Twitter” have been present in daily news during the months before the Dutch parliamentary elections on the 15th of March (van de Wiel 2017; The PostOnline 2016).

Twitter is a digital platform upon which people can post tweets consisting of a maximum of 140 characters (Weller et al. 2014). The platform was founded in 2006 by Jack Dorsey as a tool to update friends on their activities and whereabouts (Akcora & Demirbas 2010). Dorsey was inspired by the delivery constraints to Short Message Service (SMS) text messages, which break up into two messages after 160 characters. The same limits were then used for Tweets, reserving 20 characters for the name space and 140 characters for the

(9)

9

message. Picture 2. below shows the original sketch of the layout made by Dorsey. It shows that the current status is “reading” and that one can find other users by entering their e-mail in the “know someone?” function.

The medium was originally meant for the fast messengers, truckers, bikers and emergency services (Weller et al. 2014). However, since its founding Twitter has become ragingly popular, with an estimated number of 313 million users in 2013 (About.Twitter 2017). In the political world Twitter has gained popularity as well. The platform has become a way for politicians to reach out to the electorate. This is due to its large number of users, the possibility to respond to each other’s Tweets (@-mentions), to external links (by inserting hyperlinks) and to topics (trough hashtags #) (Graham, Jackson & Broersma 2016).

Picture 2. Picture of Twitter sketch by Jack Dorsey, 2000. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jackdorsey/182613360/ (Dorsey, 2006).

In 2016 the communication advisory bureau Lindblom analyzed the Twitter use of all 150 Dutch members of parliament (MPs) in the previous year (The Post Online 2016). It found that 144 out of 150 MPs have a Twitter account and together sent over 131.500 tweets that year, an average of 496 tweets per day (The Post Online 2016). According to the bureau Wilders is the most influential MP of the Netherlands, with over 714.000 followers. This is a

(10)

10

far greater number than his direct electoral competition. Mark Rutte, party leader of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) which won 33 seats in parliament, has 101.000 followers. Alexander Pechtold, party leader of the Democrats66 (D66) which won 19 seat in parliament, has 630.000 followers, and Sybrand Buma, party leader of the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) which also won 19 seats in parliament, has 70.100 followers. The influence of the MP on Twitter was not only measured by the number of followers, but also by the effect a tweet has on the public. In fact, Wilders does not send most tweets per day, but his tweets are the ones mostly commented and shared (The Post Online 2016).

The Nieuw Rotterdamse Courant (NRC), the fifth largest Dutch national newspaper, investigated all Wilders’ tweets since 2009, when he became active on the platform (van de Weil 2017). The following list, English translation presented between brackets, presents the 13 most used topics in his tweets, which are signaled on Twitter by a hashtag (#):

1) #kominverzet (put up resistance) 2) #grenzendicht (borders closed) 3) #NoMoreIslam

4) #stempvv (vote pvv)

5) #PVVOP1 (pvv on first place) 6) #NEXIT (Dutch Brexit)

7) #NederlandWeerVanOns (the Netherlands ours again) 8) #PVV

9) #genoegisgenoeg (enough is enough) 10) #stopislam

11) #knettergek (totally crazy) 12) #minder (less)

13) #deislamize (less Islam)1

This in itself is already interesting data, since seven out of the 13 hashtags resonate with the PVV’s security measures written in its election program for the 2017 parliamentary elections (PVV party program 2017-2021). The PVV’s party program for the 2017 parliamentary elections consists of 11 measures two of which are directly linked to security. The first is de-Islamization, a position the PVV aims to accomplish through the implementation of eight

(11)

11

measurements that ban the Islamic culture from the Netherlands – for example by banning of Islamic immigrants, or prohibiting the Koran (PVV party program 2017-2021, point 1). The PVV’s second security position is drastically increasing governmental spending on the police force and the Ministry of Defense (PVV party program 2017-2021, point 9). Tweets related to these security measures can be considered promotions of the security vision of the PVV. The more followers Wilders’ Twitter account has, and the more his tweets are liked, retweeted and commented on, the more people his security promotions reach. Wilders is thus performing security through tweeting. This thesis in interested in how this performing of security by Wilders takes place and how his tweets contribute to the security goals of Wilders, is what interests this thesis.

There is little doubt on the fact that the internet is increasingly important as a tool for politicians to reach out to their electorate (Vergeer et al. 2013, p. 478). Most of the research done so far on Twitter has however focused on the social side-effects of the platform. For example, prior studies have shown that Twitter can potentially help build more direct connections between politicians and voters. Because the platform gives citizens and politicians the ability to bypass traditional media and newspapers, Twitter can bring the two sides closer together (Broersma & Graham 2012). Despite the fact that Twitter has the potential to increase direct interaction between citizens and politicians, most of the empirical research shows that politicians use Twitter for the deliver messages to the public instead of communicating with them (Jackson & Lilleker 2009).

Comparative research has been conducted on the use of Twitter by Dutch and British politicians during the 2010 general elections to see if they differ in style (ibid.). The researchers discovered that Dutch politicians were not only more active on Twitter during campaigns, but also more likely to embraced the interactive potentials the medium has (ibid.). This research aims to enrich the field of studies on Twitter, by adding a new research angle on the use of Twitter for the performance of security. By performance of security this thesis means

1.1 Formulation of the problem and societal and academic relevance

There is no doubt about the increasingly important role the internet plays in parliamentary elections (Vergeer et al. 2013, p. 478). During parliamentary elections, politicians become more active on social media (Metaxas & Mustafaraj 2012). Research has been done on Twitter use by politicians during the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2012 (Jacobs &

(12)

12

Spierings 2014; Dietz 2013), but the latest parliamentary elections have yet to be thoroughly examined. This research is inspired by the phenomenon called Twitter and aims to fill in the literature gap existent on the 2017 Dutch parliamentary election. Moreover, it aims to fill the gap in the theoretical field, by focusing on the security use of Twitter.

This thesis finds its societal relevance in the fact that the political impact of Twitter has often been overlooked. A problem that immediately comes to mind when scrolling through Wilders’ Twitter page is the language he uses in his tweets, arguably assaulting and discriminating a religious minority in the Netherlands. In the Dutch constitution the first article states that every person in the Netherlands should be treated similarly, and that discrimination by religion, race or gender is prohibited (Parlement & Politiek 2017, de Grondwet). The fact that Wilders is allowed to speak in such language on a platform open to everybody, is arguably dangerous for the persistency of the Dutch constitution.

Twitter is an open platform without major constrictions on the language use (Theocharis et al. 2016, p. 1008), can arguably be seen as dangerous for the society. If Twitter itself cannot protect citizens by make rules about language allowed in tweets, the government possibly could. The legal implications of Wilders’ Twitter use would be interesting for law students to the research. By showing that Twitter can be used as a tool in the performance of security by politicians, the thesis aims to emphasize this political relevance. In exploring the relationship between Wilders and his tweets for security purposes this thesis answers the following research question: How does Geert Wilders use Twitter as a device for practicing security, during the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections? To fully answer this question, the following sub-questions will be answered in this research:

- What are the socio-technical characteristics of Twitter?

- What is the social disposition of Wilders in relation to his Twitter messages?

- What are the main characteristics of the context of the Dutch parliamentary elections in which Wilders’ tweets are placed in?

1.3 Structure of the research

Each of the sub-questions elaborates on a variable of the security practice formula created by Amicelle et al. (2015, p. 302): “security practices= actors’ social disposition + socio-technical characteristics of devices + context”. By applying the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) to the tweets of Wilders, this research will gain a fuller

(13)

13

understanding of the security practices of Wilders. What the research understands by Wilders’ security practice is explained in the research design chapter. The thesis is divided into four chapters. The introduction sets the stage for the topic of the research and presents the main research question answered in the thesis. The second chapter introduces the theoretical framework, which lays down the theoretical field in which the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) can be best understood. The third chapter explains the research design, which further elaborates on the operationalization of this thesis. The fourth chapter is the actual analysis part of the research, which is divided into three sections, each covering one of the variables of the security practice theory. The next chapter elaborates more thoroughly on the theoretical framework of the thesis and prior research done on this research topic.

(14)

14

2. Theoretical framework

Before starting with the theoretical framework, it is important to explain what this thesis considers a security device and why is considers Twitter to be one. Taken from the Oxford Dictionary, a device is a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment. It is also a plan, method, or trick with a particular aim (Oxford Dictionary2). Even though the Oxford Dictionary explanation refers to devices as being especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment, many scholars have argued that security devices can take non-material forms (Behrent 2013 & Butler 2010). Foucault as well as Behrent argue that the term technology does not per definition refer to tools, machines or applications of science, but could also refer to human processes and methods (Behrent 2013, p. 56).

Amicelle et al. (2015) emphasize the role that performativity has within their model. Following Butler’s explanation, performativity speech acts can bring about certain realities and can have social consequences (Butler, 2010: p.147, italics in original). In the case of the Geert Wilders, Twitter messages can be seen a performative speech act. By regularly posting messages with his political opinion, Wilders hopes to alter the public’s vision and gain more political popularity. “Performative speech acts have productive effects in the world; they configure worlds differently and bring something new or different into being” (Amicelle et al. 2015, p. 298, italics in original). Applying this to the Twitter of Wilders, would suggest that his messages are motivated by the urge to bring something new into being. Bringing Twitter in as a security device in the security practice formula, also enriches existent research on security devices.

2.0 Introduction

This chapter discusses the theoretical framework of the thesis. The thesis uses the security practice theory by Anthony Amicelle, Claudia Aradau and Julien Jeandesboz (2015) to answer the main research question: How does Geert Wilders use Twitter as a device for practicing security, during the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections? Their theoretical proposal is summarized in the formula: “security practices= actors’ social disposition + socio-technical characteristics of devices + context” (Amicelle et al. 2015, p. 302). By filling in this formula, with Geert Wilders’ tweets as the security device, this thesis aims to get a full understanding of Wilders’ security practices and his use of Twitter to benefit these practices. To obtain this

(15)

15

understanding it is important to determine what this thesis identifies as Wilders’ security practice. As mentioned in the introduction, the PVV has two political measures in its party program relating to security: de-Islamization and investing more money in the Ministry of Defense and the police force (PVV party program 2017-2021). This research considers these measures as the security goals of Wilder. The security practices in this situation would be the implementation of national legislation that could prohibit the entering of Islamic immigrant or that grants more money to the police force and the Ministry of Defense.

This theoretical framework is consists of four steps, each one helping to specify the field in which the security device theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) can be understood. First, the security practice theory is places in the broader approach of critical security studies, an umbrella approach characterized by its focus on the effect of human agency on social change by emphasizing consciousness and culture (Always 1995, p. 2). The second steps explains the practice approach, which highlights the importance of analyzing the context of a subject in order to gain a better understanding of the transformation of the subject (Schatzki 1995, p. 11). Within this step the practice theory of Bourdieu (1979) is explained. A famous practice theory Amicelle et al. extensively use in their security practice theory (2015). The third step further examines the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015). The fourth and final step argues why this research chooses the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) as a theoretical framework, instead of securitization, a more familiar critical security theory also focusing on the influence of language (Peoples and Vaughan-William 2010; Waever et al. 1993 & Buzan et al. 1998). In the conclusion a few final words on the theoretical findings are mentioned.

2.1 Critical security studies

The security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) can be better understood in a framework of broader disciplines, the first one being critical security studies. Critical security studies is a sub-discipline, within International Relations (IR) theories, that has gained prominence over the past two decades (Browning and McDonald 2011, p. 235). Classical critical theorist, e.g. Karl Marx, Jürgen Habermas and Max Weber, are known for criticizing the traditional approach to security. Traditional security studies see the state as the main referent object (the object that is being threatened) and the use of force as the subject of security (Waltz 1979). Many critical studies of security have argued that not only states are units of analysis that can be threatened by external factors, but also communities, national identities and even the

(16)

16

environment can be seen as units of analysis in security studies (Peoples and Vaughan-William 2010; Waever et al. 1993; Buzan et al. 1998; McDonald 2008).

Moreover, scholars of critical security studies recognize the fact that security is a socially constructed phenomenon which can be a politically powerful instrument (Browning & McDonald 2013, p. 236). The security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) follows the argumentation of critical security studies, since it does not necessarily use states as main unit of analysis. When relating critical security studies to this research, the research can also be considered a critical security study. First of all, the state is not the main unit of analysis. The research examines artifacts (e.g. written Tweets, academic literature and newspapers), to obtain a better understanding of the characteristics of Twitter, Wilders’ position in relation to his Tweets and the context his position is placed in.

Additionally, this research addresses security as a practice, more thoroughly explained in the next paragraph, which argues that security is formed by processes of human activity (Butler 2010; Goffman 1959). This relates perfectly with the notion of critical security studies on the socially constructed phenomenon. The following section explores the practice turn more thoroughly.

2.2 The practice turn

A more narrowed down approach than critical security studies, is the practice turn. The work of Amicelle et al. (2015) should also be acknowledged as a practice theory. The ‘practice turn’ approach is one not only present within IR theories but also apparent in philosophy, history, sociology and cultural theory (Schatzki, Cetina & Savigny 2001, p. 11). Practice theorists in IR invite scholars to look at world politics through practices (Adler & Pouliot 2011). Adler and Pouliot argue that a focus on practices does not offer a grand theory, but does account for many actions and phases of the world (e.g. power and security, institutions and organizations and trade and finance) (Adler & Pouliot 2011, p. 2). By looking more precisely at the everyday practices of the world, these phases can be better understood (Doty 1996). Though, options differ on the definition of a practice. According to Christian Bueger et al. (2017, p. 128) a practice consists out of three elements: physical movements (doing and saying things); practical – unconscious or conscious – knowledge; and out of objects used in the practice.

According to Adler and Pouliot (2011), a practice can be defined by five elements. First, a practice is a performance, a process of doing something (Butler 2010; Goffman 1959). Contrary to entities, they have no existence without this process. Second, practices usually

(17)

17

follow a pattern, which means that different practices usually produce similar behavior. However, room for maneuver for agency however remains (Goffman 1959). Third, practices are competent through social recognition, meaning that individuals interpret their performance and are able to appraise a practice (Pouliot & Emanuel 2011, p. 7). Forth, practices rest on background knowledge. This knowledge precedes the practice and resembles skills instead of norms and ideas (Bourdieu 1990). Lastly, practices bring together discursive and material worlds, meaning that they combine language and action. Without language people could never be able to communicate and make physical decisions which lead to the practices. Practices are typically executed in a world of ideas and individuals, which in turn changed by those practices (Pouliot & Emanuel 2011, p. 7).

Within the practice theory there are differing opinions on what eventually explains practices, but despite their differences all practice theorists share the belief that all human activity, language, science and power occur within, and are components of, a field of practices (ibid.). Traditional practice theorists see practices as “arrays of human activity” (Schatzki 2001, p. 11). A “posthumanist” minority, focusing on technology studies, adds that these activities can also include those of nonhumans, such as machines or objects of scientific investigation (ibid.). Schatzki et al. (2001) define the ‘practice approach’ as one that “develops an account of practices, either the field of practices or some subdomain thereof (e.g., science), or treats the field of practices as the place to study the nature and transformation of their subject matter” (Schatzki et al. 2001, p. 11). By this they mean that analyzing the context of the subject is more important than the subject itself, when interested in the transformation of the subject. Practice approaches usually oppose theoretical paths such as individualism (rational choice theory and network analysis) and structuralism (Schatzki et al. 2001, pp. 10-11). Pierre Bourdieu (1979) defined this field as the social context in which the actors are operating. This context is defined by (unequal) power relations between actors (Pouliot & Mérand 2013, p. 30). The context in which the practice takes place is therefore crucial to investigate. This research will therefore analyze the context of the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections to get a thorough overview of the context in which Wilders’ tweets function.

Apart from the context, there is another important aspect for the explanation of practices. This aspect has been defined by Pierre Bourdieu as “[(habitus) (capital)]” (1979). Habitus is explained by Bourdieu as “a system of lasting, transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions” (Bourdieu, cited in Pouliot & Mérand 2013, p. 29). The habitus is

(18)

18

established by objective and subjective structures, the former referring to an actors’ position in the field and the latter to an actors’ disposition. The habitus exists partly unconscious, and helps actors to better achieve their objectives (Jackson 2009, pp. 106-107). Capital is defined as “a resource, specific to the field (such as cultural or political capital) which actors aim to accumulate and benefit from” (Pouliot & Mérand 2013, p. 36). Capital can hence be seen as the currency for a particular field. An actor born in a social position endowed with, for example, cultural capital, has an advantage compared to an actor that is not (Jackson 2009, p. 110). Bourdieu’s sociological model “[(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice” (1979), based on the study of the French social classes, has been and is still very influential in the practice approach and serves as the main theoretical inspiration for the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015). Amicelle et al. formulate their security practice formula along the lines of Bourdieu’s sociological model. Their notion of social disposition and context should therefore be generally understood as Bourdieu’s notion of habitus and field. In paragraph 2.3, the formula will be more thoroughly explained.

By approaching security practices through devices, Amicelle et al. (2015) distinguish themselves from existing practice theories as such the sociological theory from Bourdieu. The authors aim to emphasize the importance that devices have on the outcome of practices. This new research angle is what makes the theory so interesting for this thesis, since it provides this research with the tools to investigate the way in which Wilders uses Twitter to perform security.

2.3 The security practice formula

After laying the basic understanding of field in which the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) should be understood, this section digs deeper into to formula presented by the authors:

“security practices= actors’ social disposition + socio-technical characteristics of devices + context” (p. 302).

With this formula, the authors emphasize the importance that devices have on political events (2015, p. 302). Amicelle et al. do not make explicitly clear what they mean by security devices (2015). Despite the lack of an explicit definition, they do argue that calling something a device is to recognize an intentional purpose and a desired effect (2015, p. 294). Samuel Tanner and Michaël Meyer investigate (2015) the everyday use and practice of three sorts of

(19)

19

technological devices (mobile phones, body scanners and mobile digital terminals) by police men, and argue that several artifacts are used as security devices even though they are not made or validated for this purpose (Tanner & Meyer 2015). This notion links perfectly to the fact that this thesis considers Twitter to be a security device. Even though Twitter is made to serve a mere communication purpose, if used for a security purpose –the promotion of Wilders’ security measures – the medium can be considered a security device.

By focusing on devices, Amicelle et al. contribute to a group of political scientist scholars focusing on technology in their research. Between them a perennial division has become clear, with on the one side scholars who argue that technology has innately dangerous consequences for human being and on the other side scholars arguing that technology is simply a neutral tool that should not be given more philosophical importance than it deserves (Spicer 2003). Amicelle et al. (2015) do not define technology as something intrinsically dangerous for human beings. They do however criticize scholars who argue that technological devices are purely autonomous tools (ibid.).

Amicelle et al. (2015) argue that a choice of security device, for example public policy, body scanner or a drone, comes with a range of problems, methods of operations and techniques (Amicelle et al. 2015, p. 294). The authors call these the socio-technical characteristics of the device. They argue for this new way of thinking, since not enough attention has been given to the performative and political effects of security devices (Amicelle et al. 2015, p. 294). Following the argumentation of Amicelle et al. (2015) on devices, this research defines Twitter as a security device and therefore as influential in the outcome of Wilders’ security practices. Wilders’ choice of security device – Twitter – for the promotion of his security measures, is therefore attached to a set of social and technical characteristic. Only by understanding these, is becomes possible for this research to draw conclusions from Wilders’ use of Twitter.

The social disposition aspect of the formula should be generally understood as the notion of habitus from Bourdieu (1979). By this Amicelle et al. (2015) mean the actors’ position in relation to the device. This relation is influenced by multiple factors. First, the actor can be either the one governing (producer of) the security device, or the one being governed (the consumer) (Amicelle et al. 2015, p. 296). Linking this to Wilders’ tweets, the following can be stated: one the one hand the is the owner of his own Tweets, since nobody controls what he posts on his Twitter account. On the other hand, Wilders still needs to follow the technical characteristics of Twitter like everybody else. Meaning that Wilders, similar to other Twitter users, is for example bound to the limit of characters possible in a tweet.

(20)

20

Second, security devices are tangled in a web of past experiences that functions consciously as well as unconsciously as a guide for an actor’s future use of a device (Bourdieu, cited in Pouliot & Mérand 2013, p. 29). Moreover, a security device is intrinsically interconnected to strategies of use, through which the controller of the security device has the power to control and limit the freedom of the others (Behrent 2013). Wilders separated from the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) in 2004, because he did not agree with the party conforming with the European Union (EU) regulation that made the accession of Turkey to the EU possible after necessary reforms. Wilders absolutely did not want Turkey to be able to join the EU and consequently separated from the VVD. The PVV participated in the parliamentary elections as an independent party for the first time in 2006. It seems as if Wilders’ measures in relation to the Islam is embedded in Wilders’ security values. The analysis chapter of this research shows how the social disposition of Wilders influence his performance of security.

The theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) has been defined as a practice theory. And since practice theories are defined ones that “treats the field of practices as the place to study the nature and transformation of their subject matter” (Schatzki et al. 2001, p. 11), it is relevant for this thesis to gain an full understanding of the context in which the tweets of Wilders should be understood. This thesis focuses on the 2017 parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, and analyses the time period from December 1st till the date of the elections, March 15th.

As shown in the introduction, it seems as if Wilders uses tweets to promote his security vision. This thesis is interested in the relation between Wilders and his tweets and investigates this through the implementation of each of the components of the formula. Incorporating the research’s topic in the formula of Amicelle et al. (2015), the formula looks as followed:

“National legislation on de-Islamization and increasing governmental spending on the Ministry of Defense and the police force= Wilders’ social disposition on Twitter and his security measures + socio-technical characteristics of Twitter + context of the 2017 parliamentary elections”.

2.4 Why not securitization theory?

A theory many security scholars will think of when thinking about research on the effect that words (in this case Twitter) have on security matters, is securitization theory (Waever et al. 1993; Buzan et al. 1998). This theory argues that powerful security actors can use speech acts

(21)

21

to legitimize extraordinary policy measures, by framing an otherwise normal (political) event into an existential threat, such as migration (Waever et al. 1993; Buzan et al. 1998). A security actor frames an ordinary subject, immigration for example, as a security threat and thereby legitimizes extraordinary measures. The public then supports this securitization move, believing the urgency of the threat, allowing the politicians to use any type of security measurement they consider appropriate in order to stop it (Waever 1995, p. 55).

The decision to choose the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) instead of the securitization theory lies in three factors. First, this research does not consider Twitter as a speech act. Although tweets are mostly written words and therefore arguably speech acts, Twitter as platform is only accessible through the use of a technological device, e.g. a smartphone or computer. Besides, tweets do not always have to consist of word, but can also be images or videos. This thesis therefore considers Twitter as a technological platform on which people can post speech acts.

Second securitization theory pays too little attention to contextual influences (McDonald 2008). As mentioned earlier, the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015) is a practice theory, focusing on security practices and the influence that security devices have on them. Whereas securitization theory mainly focuses on the strength of the speech act and position of the security actor, security practice theories focus on the entire field of interactions, positions and context for the outcome (Schatzki et al. 2001). The choice of a practice theory gives this research the possibility to focus on the context in which Wilders’ tweets should be addressed a crucial factor in explaining a social and political event (Huysmans 2002).

Third, securitization theory mentions only one sort of speech act by security actors, namely the spoken one (Waever et al. 1993; Buzan et al. 1998). Amicelle et al. argue that different security devices have different socio-technical characteristics. By defining Twitter as a security device instead of a speech act, this research also shows the difference between the socio-technical characteristics of Twitter and parliamentary speeches. Choosing securitization as a theoretical framework, would cause both Twitter and parliamentary speeches to be considered speech acts, which would remove the opportunity to show the unique set of social and technical characteristics belonging to Twitter. As mentioned in the introduction, Twitter has become a heavily used social platform by politicians in the Netherlands. The phenomenon of Twitter being used to perform security has however not yet been investigated. This thesis hopes to contribute to the public knowledge about Twitter and the research done on the subject.

(22)

22

2.5 Conclusion

This theoretical framework chapter has given a thorough understanding of the theoretical field in which the security practice theory of Amicelle et al (2015) should be understood. The chapter did this in four steps, each step narrowing down this field. Prior to these steps, the chapter defined what it means by security practices when using the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015). The research considers Wilders’ security practices to be the realization of Wilders’ security measures (de-Islamization and more funding to the Ministry of Defense and the police force). The steps were as followed: First, the chapter argued that the security practice of Amicelle et al. is best understood as a critical security study, by showing that they, similar to security studies, do not focus on states as their main unit of analysis. The actors focus on technological devices. This falls in line with this research’s focus, since focuses on the Twitter as the main unit of analysis

Second the chapter defined the security practice theory as a practice theory. This theoretical approach puts its focus on the process performances and the influence that a person’s conscious and unconscious values have on it (Pouliot & Emanuel 2011; Bourdieu 1979; Schatzki 2001). Amicelle et al. do the same, by arguing that security devices and the social disposition –which can be seen as Wilders’ conscious and unconscious values – of the actor determine for the outcome of security practices. To investigate these two aspects, it is not only important to have a separate understanding of Wilders’ security measures and the technicalities of Twitter, but also to know how this process of using Twitter is influenced by Wilders’ social disposition and the context of the 2017 Dutch elections.

Thirdly, after elaborating on the theoretical field for the understanding of the security practice theory of Amicelle et al. (2015), the chapter explained of the security practice formula presented in their work. Following their formula, the section showed that Wilders’ security practices are influenced by his social disposition. The latter is considered as Wilders’ conscious and unconscious values, shaping his relation with Twitter and his security measures.

Finally, the chapters explained why the research uses the security practice theory instead on the securitization theory, more often used in critical security studies. The research states that it considers Twitter not merely as a speech act, but as a technological platform which enables people to post speech acts on it. Twitter is a device, which can be used for the purpose of performing security. However, a tweet does not have to entail a security message, but can also address everyday activities that have nothing to do with security. Considering tweets as securitizing moves would assume the fact that they are always used for security purposes. Moreover, analyzing Twitter through the security practice theory gives this research

(23)

23

the possibility to analyze the context in which Wilders’ tweets can be understood. A crucial aspect when analyzing a social phenomenon like a politicians’ social media activity. The next chapter elaborates on how this research will apply the security practice theory to the tweets of Wilders.

(24)

24

3. Research design and methods

3.0 Introduction

This chapter explains the research design of this thesis. The chapter is built up in steps, each step explaining more specifically the choice of research design and method. The first step explains the choice for a qualitative research design, a design characterized by in depth analysis usually of a smaller number of research units (Swanborn 2004, p. 7). The second step explains the research’s partially inductive and partially deductive design. The third step argues for the use of a single-case study design within this research, a design that focuses on the exploration of one specific case, Geert Wilders’ use of tweets to perform security. The fourth section presents the methods of data collection used by the thesis, namely literature, discourse and document analysis, and data analysis. Fifth, the chapter reflects on the reliability and validity of the research and discusses the possible obstacles for an objective conduction of the research.

3.1 A qualitative research design

In order to answer the research question of the thesis, this research adopts a qualitative research design. Qualitative research permits the researcher to gain an in-depth understanding of the research subject, for example Twitter as a tool for security practices. The choice for a qualitative research analysis is based on the advantages and strengths of this kind of research design.

Qualitative research is often used to identify certain structures in society. To understand these structures, perspectives of multiple actors are taken into consideration. The old distinction, that qualitative research is only used for theory building and quantitative research for theory testing no longer holds (Wesley 2010). There are large well known quantitative databases (e.g. Central Bureau for Statistics), that perfectly lend themselves for theory building and many qualitative research has been done to test theories (Van der Zee 2016, p. 6). Similarly, the argument that qualitative research does not use variables on interval- or ratio level has been criticized by multiple qualitative researchers (Swanborn 2004). The most important distinction according to van der Zee is the number of research units being analyzed (2004, p. 7). In quantitative research analysis the quality of the research is directly linked to the number of research units that is being analyzed. The higher the number, the better conclusion a researcher can conduct. With qualitative research analysis this is different. The quality of the research is not defined by a higher number of research units. Instead, the

(25)

25

research gains an in-depth analysis on a few research units and provides the reader with a better understanding of the processes and context of the research units (Van der Zee 2016, p. 7). This is crucial for the thesis, since its main research aim in to gain a thorough understanding of Wilders’ use of Twitter for the achievement of his security goals.

3.2 Inductive versus deductive research

This research’s choice for an inductive and deductive approach is made on basis of the purpose of the research (van Lanen 2015). Whereas deductive research is usually done when researchers want to test a theory, inductive research is mostly conducted when creating one. Most qualitative research is inductive, since most of the qualitative research is focused on the creation of new concepts (Jansen 2016, p. 53). Vromen defined qualitative research as a research method that is “premised on discovering categories and being explanatory with open questions, rather than only testing theoretically derived hypothesis through deduction” (Vromen 2010, p. 27). This research is carried out partially inductive as well as deductive (see figure 1.).

Figure 1. Left: The scientific method of research includes proposing hypotheses, conducting research, and creating or modifying theories based on results. Reprinted from Lumen

(26)

26 Figure 1. Right: The scientific method of research includes proposing hypotheses, conducting research, and creating or modifying theories based on results, adopted with variables from this research.

First, a problem is detected, indicated as an observation in figure 1., namely the fact that there is little research done on Twitter as a security device and that the political importance of the medium is often overlooked. After detecting this problem, the research looks for a fitting theory to answer the central research question, indicated with finding a suitable theory in figure 1. right-side. This process is overly inductive in the sense that it detects a problem and looks for a theory that helps to investigate the problem. The third step falls more along the lines of deductive research, namely applying the security practices model of Amicelle et al. (2015) to the Wilders’ use of Twitter and testing its applicability. Finally one can argue that this research also aims to modify the theory of Amicelle et al. (2015), by showing that Twitter can be added to the list of security devices. The next sections explains the research decision to make use of a single-case study design.

3.3 A single-case study design on the Twitter use of Geert Wilders

This research uses a single-case study design, a design mostly used for analyzing social events, groups or organizations (Kennedy 1979). Similar to the qualitative research design in general, the strength of a single-case study lies in the extensive description of the case and an in-depth understanding of the social processes involved in the case. A single-case study analyzes the case within its natural environment, meaning that the case is not separated from the context it is in (Swanborg 2013) This is an important aspect for this research, since its aim is to explain the Twitter use of Wilders, whose acts cannot be seen separately from its context. Moreover, since practice studies have been defined as ones that focus on the coming into being of practices, it is important for this research to analyze Wilders’ tweets in their context (Schatzki 2001).

There has been critique on the use of single-case study researches, especially on the possibility to generalize from a single-case study (Yin 1981; Wesley 2010). Because a single case study only gathers data from one case, it is difficult to draw conclusions about other cases – so there is no external validity (Wesley 2010, p. 5). For instance, this thesis cannot draw conclusions about other party leaders that are active on Twitter, since the research did not focus on their situation.

(27)

27

Even though it is difficult for single-case studies to be statistically generalizable, since the research is arguably often too case-specific, the research can be theoretically generalizable, meaning that the research contributes to a wider theoretical framework applicable to multiple cases (Smaling 2009, p. 7). The methodological aim of this research is therefore rather to contribute to the theoretical framework of Twitter as a security device and give the reader a thorough understanding of Wilders’ use of Twitter for the achievement of his security position, than to draw conclusions about other politicians use of Twitter. Moreover, this research can be inspiring for other scholars, to conduct further research on the topic of Twitter use of politicians. In the analysis and conclusion of this research a few recommendation for follow-up research are made. The next section explains the method of data collection of this research, elaborates on the data collected to answer the research question and focuses on the analyses used in this research.

3.4 A three-fold analysis

As explained in the theoretical framework, this research analyzes the three variables of the security practice formula of Amicelle et al. (2015) applied to Wilders’ use of Twitter. The analysis is built in accordance to these variables, starting with Wilders’ social disposition towards his media use and his security measures. Consequently, a section on the socio-technological characteristics of Twitter follows, and finally a section will present the context of the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections.

The analysis of Wilders’ social disposition towards his media use and his security measures as written in the 2017 party program will be divided into two parts. The first part analyzes Wilders’ social disposition towards his media use. The research tries to find documents that demonstrate Wilders’ media strategy. The research uses document analysis as a method to gather data. By analyzing documents from three different sources –academic literature focusing on Wilders’ media strategy, newspaper articles reporting on his media strategy and documents that articulate his own words on his media strategy, for example tweets or interviews – the research aims for an objective vision of Wilders’ media strategy (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 13). Moreover, by gathering data from national newspapers, that are in the list of ten most read national newspapers of the Netherlands 3, the research aims to guarantee the representativeness and authenticity of the data (Wesley 2010, p. 5).

(28)

28

The second part of this paragraph focuses on Wilders’ social disposition towards his security measures – de-Islamization and increasing governmental spending on the Ministry of Defense and the police force – as written in the PVV’s 2017-2021 party program. For this analysis three party programs of the PVV (2006-2011; 2010-2015; 2017-2021) are analyzed for their security vision. This analysis is also done through document analysis. The choice for these three party programs has three reasons. First, the 2017-2021 party program is the one of the most recent elections and central to the context of this research. The 2006-2011 party program is the first one made by the PVV as an independent party. Analyzing its security vision gives a better understanding of how much Wilders’ security measures are embedded in his values. Due to a limited amount of time, the research analyzes three of the existing four party programs. The research chose the 2010-2015 program over the 2012-2017 one, since this program is made right after the economic crisis of the Netherlands, lasting from 2007-2011 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek CBS). Such drastic economic changes can have a significant influence on the party programs of political parties (Otjes 2014). The security vision of the party programs is analyzed for the use of language, prominence of the position and aimed measurements mentioned in the security position. Through this thorough analysis on how embedded Wilders’ security measures and his media strategy are, this research aims to be able to draw conclusions on how these social dispositions influence Wilders use of Twitter.

For the analysis of the socio-technical characteristics of Twitter this research compares tweets of Wilders related to his two security measures to parliamentary speeches of Wilders on the same topics. The research looks for differences in technicalities, language and aimed public and purpose of the two forms of speech acts. All data is gathered from a time-period between the first of December 2016 till the 15th of March 2017, the so called election months of the 2017 parliamentary elections. First, Wilders’ tweets form the entire time-period are manually scanned for possibly relevant tweets. To do this the website www.allmytweets.nl, is used, which gives Twitter users the possibility to see all tweets sent from and send to a particular account. After the research gathered all relevant tweets the tweets are sorted in the categories retweet or tweet from Wilders himself. A person’s own tweets and a retweet have other purposes and functions and are therefore analyzed separately. Retweeting causes a tweet to be exposed to an entire new groups of followers and therefore viewed more times than it already has (Weller et al 2014, p. 21).

The analysis of one tweet of each sort is presented in the section. The analysis is done through the method of discourse analysis. A few decennia ago discourse analysis only

(29)

29

happened in linguistic studies, but recently this method is used in many different research disciplines, including critical security studies (van den Berg 2016). The method involves not only spoken texts, but also images and written texts and tries to draw conclusions on the communication between multiple actors (ibid.). An important implication of discourse analysis, is the believe that language can have intended or unintended consequences (ibid.). The research looks for specificities in language, pictures used by Wilders and topics chosen in his tweets.

For the analysis of the parliamentary question the same strategy is used. First, all parliamentary speeches of Wilders during the election months are manually scanned for ones related to Wilders’ security measures. Afterwards, the speeches are sorted by the categories: motions, questions of amendments. Finally, the research will present an analyses of each sort, by looking at language and further technicalities of the parliamentary speeches. Concluding to this section the technicalities plus the social characteristics Wilders’ tweets and parliamentary speeches are compared, as such the research will be able to draw conclusions about the unique set of socio-technical characteristics of Twitter.

The third and final paragraph analyzes the context in which Wilders’ tweets should be understood. The research does so by analyzing two aspects of the context. First of all, the specificities of the Dutch electoral system. It is important to understand this system, since it has the ability to influence party strategies (Lago et al 2017). The research uses information derived from the website www.parlement.nl, on which all information on the Dutch electoral system is gathered. This website is created by the Parlementair Documentatie Centrum initiated by the University of Leiden. This center focuses on the digitalization of political information to widen the reach of its information (PCDU UL, content). Secondly, the general context of the 2017 Dutch elections will be analyzed. For this second aspect the research sketches an overview of the most important themes and players present during the elections, of how the elections were perceived by the international community and of the party specificities of the PVV. By taken these aspects into the overview of the general context of the elections it becomes clear where Wilders and his party can be considered during the 2017 parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. Concluding to this paragraph, the research aims to draw conclusion about the influence of the context on Wilders’ use of tweets for security purposes during the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2017.

(30)

30

3.5 Reflection on reliability and validity of the research plus possible obstacles

As mentioned earlier in the single-case study paragraph, it is tricky to generalize conclusions to a larger population, because of the small number of research units that is analyzed. Therefore, case study researchers often do not aspire to select cases ‘representative’ of a larger population since they cannot make external valid claims (Bennett 2002, p. 5). The external validity of this research is for the same reason not linked to the practical generalizability, but to the theoretical generalizability of the thesis. By enriching the theory on security devices –adding Twitter to the list of devices able to use for security purposes– the research aims to fill the research gap in the security studies field.

Achieving full internal validity, by making sure that there is no bias in the research, is difficult in qualitative research with only one researcher. One can argue that through the position of the researcher him of herself, documents are interpreted differently (Wesley 2010, p. 4). For this thesis it can arguably be said that my own unconscious dispositions regarding Wilders as a politician could get in the way of an objective research. However, through a datailed explanation of the method of data collection and analysis, plus the analysis of data from multiple sources (triangulation), I aim to remove any form of bias from the research (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 13). Moreover, the discourse analysis of Wilders’ tweets and parliamentary speeches is done with the help of a coding system –MAXQDA – which further improves the internal validity of the research (Wesley 2010, p. 4).

(31)

31

4. Analysis

4.0 Introduction

Table 1. below shows the general structure of the analysis chapter. In the left column the sub-questions are presented, each of which will be addressed in a separate section. In the middle column the operationalization of each sub-question is presented. In the right column the paragraph number is given. Ultimately, addressing these sub-questions permits us to answer the main research question of the thesis.

The first section explains the social disposition of Wilders in relation to his Tweets, which looks at the relation between Wilders and Twitter, his motivation towards the platform and his previous experiences with it during parliamentary election. The second section focuses on the socio-technical characteristics of Twitter. By comparing the socio-technical characteristics Wilders’ tweets with those of his parliamentary speeches, it becomes clear that Twitter has its unique set of characteristics that are beneficial for Wilders’ security performance. The third section analyzes the context in which the tweets of Wilders should be considered. This section looks at the overall public support for the PVV and the electoral system, to gain a better understanding of the surroundings Wilders’ tweets are placed in. Finally, the research draws some conclusions about the security practices influenced by Wilders’ tweets and the level of applicability of the security practice formula on Wilders’ tweets.

Sub-question Operationalization Paragraph

What is the social disposition of Wilders in relation to his Twitter and his security vision?

- Wilders’ opinion/strategy on the use of Twitter: from interviews and Wilders’ own tweets.

- Wilders’ media strategy: from newspaper articles and academic research on Wilders’ use of media.

- Social disposition to security position: by comparing three party programs of the PVV with a focus on its security vision.

4.1.1

4.1.2

What are the social-technical characteristics of Twitter?

- Analyzing Wilders’ tweets.

- Analyzing Wilders’ parliamentary questions.

4.2.1 4.2.2

(32)

32

- Comparing writing style of tweets and parliamentary speeches of Wilders on the same topic.

4.2.3

What are the main

characteristics of the context in which Wilders’ Twitter is placed in?

- Exploring the Dutch electoral system and its effect on Wilders’ security practices. - Analyzing the effect of the general

context of the 2017 parliamentary elections on Wilders’ security practices: through investigating newspaper articles on the most important topics and players in the elections and the outcome.

4.3.1

4.3.2

Table.1 General structure of the analysis chapter, with on the left side the sub-questions answered in four different sections and the right side the operationalization of the question.

4.1 The social disposition of Wilders

Amicelle et al.’s (2015) definition of social disposition is strongly linked to the habitus concept of Bourdieu (1979), which was defined more precisely in the theoretical framework section (section 2.2). In short, the habitus can be seen as a built-in system consisting of conscious and unconscious perceptions which help the actor to achieve their goals (Jackson, 2009, pp. 106-107). Wilders’ disposition towards Twitter can be seen a set of norms and values influenced by his past experiences with the platform, as well as his opinion and motives for using Twitter. Amicelle et al. (2015) argue that “although these social actors often have no choice but to make do with compulsory devices, their “ways of operating” are not necessarily passive and entirely guided by established rules” (p. 300). The way of using a device, influences the product as well as the outcome of the practice (De Certeau 1984, p. 12). In Wilders case the product then refers to the realization of his security measures. Wilders’ disposition is investigated through the analysis of two aspects:

4.1.1 Wilders’ position on the use of Twitter and other media outlets.

4.1.2 An analysis of Wilders’ general party programs (2006, 2010, 2017) on relevant topics for this thesis, e.g. migration and security, to see whether his perception towards these topics has changed during the years.

(33)

33 4.1.1 Wilders’ social position towards media

It is possible to retrace Wilders’ media strategy through three sources. The first is through academic literature on Wilders’ media strategy, the second source are newspaper articles on his media strategy and finally the documents that articulate in his own words the media strategy, e.g. tweets or interviews. Through this threefold analysis this research aims to get a thorough and objective understanding of Wilders’ social disposition on the use of Twitter and other media outlets.

On the first aspect is very hard to find extensive material. Peter Bakker and Peter Vasterman (2013) found that not many academic literature researches Wilders’ media strategy, but that most of the studies have been done on the content of his tweets (Bakker & Vasterman 2013). However, through extensive research on all available academic literature on Wilders’ media strategy, this research found one key concept more or less defining Wilders’ media strategy. This key concept is also found in newspaper articles reporting on Wilders’ media strategy and documents voicing Wilders’ own vision on his media strategy.

The key concept that defines Wilders’ media strategy is control over his own appearance in the media. Hence, it is typical for Wilders’ media strategy that he himself determines where and when he appears in the news. As soon as Wilders makes a statement, he leaves the discussion to the press, the public and the political competition without participating in it (Bakker & Vasterman 2013). One could argue that Wilders will lose this control in the long-term by not participating in the discussion. Therefore, the concept short-term control is a better fit for Wilders’ media strategy. Control in the sense that Wilders’ prefers his messages to go directly to the public, without being altered by traditional media outlets. Short term in the sense that Wilders does not make the effort to control the discussion that follows his statements. This key concept can also be found in newspaper articles discussing Wilders’ media strategy as well as in Wilders’ own expressed view on his use of Twitter. In an article published by the newspaper Telegraaf on the 22nd of February 2017 is stated:

“Geert takes the wind out of his competitions sails by stating away from as many debates and interviews as possible. This has nothing to do with being cowardly, but is a well thought out media strategy” (Klaversteijn 2017).

This quote, in which it becomes clear that Wilders avoids opening the discussion with competing politicians and traditional media, the short-term control concept is voiced again.

(34)

34

By making as little appearances as possible in situations which cannot be entirely controlled – in interviews and in debates Wilders is not able to control his interviewer or opponent – he keeps the control over his appearance in the media (Klaversteijn 2017). This absence also causes the physical contact with his voters to be scarce (Ketalaar 2017). It is again short-term because this avoidance of the public debate takes away the opportunity for Wilders to influence the debates on his political vision.

The concept of short-term control is also visible when analyzing Wilders’ own expressions on his media strategy. In an interview with the broadcasting station WNL, Wilders called Twitter a “great instrument”, because the medium gives him the opportunity to convey his message “directly and unfiltered to the people”, without being disrupted by “not always kind journalists” (van de Wiel 2017). This direct connection to his followers, again gives Wilders the opportunity to control his own appearance in the media.

Picture 3. Screen capture of Geert Wilders’ tweet on his distrust towards the press, posted on 10-12-2016.

Picture 3. above shows a tweet posted by Wilders on the 10th of December 2016, and reflects his opinion on the traditional media perfectly. The graphic shows the president of the United States (US), Donald Trump, who bypasses the traditional media by using social media to inform the public, and commented by Wilders with “Never trust the press”(Wilders tweet, 10-12-2017). Trump’s media strategy has been labeled as “de-professionalizing” and even

Twitter as a security device : a single-case study on Geert Wilders' use of Twitter during the 2017 Dutch parliamentary elections