The European Parliament, Social Media and Web 2.0:
A New Model of Democratic Representation?
Master’s Thesis Phoebe Paulus
Student ID: 10003915 Supervisor: Judith Möller MSc Communication Science Political Communication
Graduate School of Communication University of Amsterdam
1 ABSTRACT
Research on the concept of “e-governance” tends to focus on the adoption of new Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) by municipalities and local government. Thus far, relatively little attention was paid to the use of online communication tools by supranational organizations like the European Union. The following research is designed to close this gap in the literature by focusing on the routine use of social media platforms within the context of European parliamentary democracy. Based on qualitative interviews and questionnaires with civil servants, Members of Parliament and Parliamentary Assistants (N=6), this study provides important insights into the use of social media platforms from the point of view of the actors within the European Parliament. It will be shown that social media have been recognized as powerful tools to interact with the public whilst circumventing
traditional mass media as gatekeepers. Yet, at this point, social media are primarily used as “virtual press offices” by individual Members of Parliament, thereby
supporting the assumption that social structures and hierarchies are simply transferred to these novel means of communication. However, it will be argued that social media platforms have the inherent capability of transforming our understanding of democracy and political representation in the long run.
2 I.INTRODUCTION
The European Parliamentis the only directly elected institution within the European Union (EU) and claims to represent all European citizens. Consequently, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have a strong interest in reaching out to the public. However, in recent years, the European Union and its institutions have been struggling to gain support and trust among voters (Karp, Banducci & Bowler, 2003). Where the goal is to communicate with geographically dispersed audiences, new Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) including the Internet and social media, seem particularly suitable tools. The adoption of new communication technologies lies at the heart of the debate on “e-governance” which touches upon fundamental questions about the future of politics in the era of web 2.0. (Chadwick & May, 2003; Dai & Norton, 2007; Torres, Pina & Acerete, 2006). Most of the current research however, examines the evidence of e-governance in local municipalities. Likewise, the aspect of social media, due to its relative novelty has been widely ignored thus far. In light of these considerations, this thesis will examine the relationship between the European Parliament, its elected Members (MEPs) and European citizens on social media platforms.
First, a review of the current literature on e-governance and online
communications on social networking platforms will be provided. Consequently, an analysis of in-depth interviews and questionnaires with MEPs or their Parliamentary Assistants (PAs) and civil servants in the European Parliament’s Directorates will be carried out. The goal is to answer the question as to how members of the European Parliament communicate with the public via social media networks. Secondly, it will be examined how these efforts relate to the communication strategy of the European
3
Parliament (EP) on an institutional level. The objective of my research is to help generate a more refined understanding of novel means of interaction on social media networks. Whilst it will be shown that social media have been identified as an important tool for parliamentary democracy in the context of the European Union, important questions as to the medium’s impact on our understanding of democratic representation and governance will be addressed.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Communication Deficit-The Starting Point for this Research
Scholarly debate in the field of communication science points towards the
“communication deficit” as one of the main problems causing a disconnect between European institutions, bureaucrats and the European electorate (Anderson & McLeod, 2004; Meyer 1999; Thiel 2008). The communication deficit itself has been defined as: “(…) The insufficient and ineffective provision of information as well as lack of transparent policy-making processes by the EU institutions (…)” (Thiel, 2008). The complexity of the EU’s institutional set-up and the multitude of actors involved adds yet another layer of complications in the supranational organization. It is believed that effective and transparent communication of EU policies and their underlying processes are vital for the EU´s legitimacy in the long run (Mak, 2005; Martins, Lecheler & De Vreese, 2012).
4
The Current Debate on E-Governance
If the “communication deficit” debate has identified a substantial problem within the context of the EU, considerations towards remedies for said ailment lie at the heart of the debate on e-governance. Given the rising levels of Internet penetration within the EU, e-governance has garnered increasing academic attention (Chadwick & May, 2003; Dai & Norton, 2007; Torres, Pina & Acerete, 2006). E-governance is defined as the employment of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve governance. However, the concept may either refer simply to the provision of administrative services online or more fundamentally transforming political processes altogether by making it more transparent, accessible and accountable (Torres, Pina and Acerete, 2006).
The scope of e-governance is laid out by Moon (2002) whose typology of the concept’s evolutionary stages has influenced much of the current literature assessing the phenomenon in practice (Bonson et al., 2012; Dixon 2010: Torres, Pina and Acerete, 2006). Anticipating a move away from analogue to digital means for
interaction, five stages were formulated to track its evolution: Whereas stage one deals with the most rudimentary provision of information, stage five suggests an
all-encompassing move towards the adoption of ICTs for governance purposes. Most importantly, this stage focuses on the active political participation amongst citizens online and as such creates a new category itself, namely that of e-democracy (Moon, 2002). Central to stage five is the two-way model of interaction, widely believed to be facilitated by the arrival of interactive features which constitute what is now referred to as web 2.0 (Jackson & Lilleker, 2009; O’Really, 2005; Stromer-Galley, 2000).
5
Dai and Norton (2007) argue that the concept of e-governance, once fully adopted, could help bridge geographic distances and lessen the chasm between Brussels and the European public. Chadwick and May (2003) take this a step further and argue that “e-governance” has the inherent capability of “rejuvenating” or modernizing democracy when available tools are made use of sufficiently. Stromer-Galley (2000) too,
acknowledges that the Internet had possible “democratizing” effects especially with regard to the facilitation of vertical communications between citizens and political actors. Yet according to her, it remained to be seen whether political actors would make use of interactive features, which are considered the differentiators between web 1.0 and web 2.0.This suggestion is echoed by a number of scholars who argue that web 2.0, will not overhaul traditional mechanisms of campaigning or political
communications. Rather, they anticipate the adoption of established hierarchal structures and cultural norms from offline to online (Gibson et al., 2008; Svensson & Larsson, 2013). This assumption is referred to as “normalization thesis”.
To date, much of the literature on e-governance focuses on the use of ICTs by local government and municipalities rather than on supranational organizations such as the EU (Bonson et al., 2012, Dixon 2010; Torres, Pina & Acerete, 2006). Yet, the need to investigate the use of social media among actors of the European Union is
underscored by survey data which discovered two emerging trends: The Internet has become the second most used medium after TV when looking for information on the EU and social media are increasingly used to keep up with EU affairs (European Commission, 2013).
6
Communication Channels and Obstacles
Overall, the literature has identified a number of channels used by the EP and
individual politicians in Europe, each of which face their own obstacles in the way of a seamless flow of information and interaction online.The most frequently identified issue is that of limited reach (Anderson and McLeod, 2004; Larsson, 2015; Thiel, 2008). Whilst the EP maintains online deliberation forums such as “Debate Europe”, they were found to solely reach those with higher levels of knowledge and interest in EU affairs (Thiel, 2008). Likewise, websites providing information on EU affairs were found to cater mainly to experts or elites due to the complex nature of the information provided (Anderson and McLeod, 2004; Martins, Lecheler & De Vreese, 2012). Research has only just begun to pay attention to the use of online networks such as Facebook and Twitter among European politicians (Larsson, 2015; Larsson & Kalsnes, 2014). Here too, initial findings point towards difficulties in reaching the general public (Larsson, 2015). Moreover, Larsson and Kalsnes (2014) discovered a
discrepancy between channels preferred by political actors and those most frequented by the general European public. Whereas European politicians tend to be more active on Twitter, average citizens preferred Facebook. They consequently refer to this phenomenon as a “mismatch” of communication practices (Larsson & Kalsnes, 2014).
Another obstacle identified by previous research indirectly touches upon the issue of professionalization as discussed extensively by Strömbäck (2007) in the context of post-modern campaigning. Early research suggests that European politicians tend to lack experience and expertise in the area of online communications. Anderson and McLeod (2004) discovered a lack of media training available to MEPs who wanted to professionalize their communication efforts. Dai and Norton (2007) found that there
7
was no official “code of conduct” established for European Union politicians regarding their online activities. These findings suggest that until recently at least, online political communications by MEPs still needed to undergo “professionalization” (Anderson & McLeod, 2004; Strömbäck, 2007).
Continuous Communications
The focus of my research lies on permanent communication activities, as opposed to event-driven campaigning. Said permanence is enabled by the use of multiple channels and multi-media and was identified as an important aspect of postmodern campaign practices (Strömbäck, 2007). Inherent to permanent campaigning is the continuous use of public opinion data as well as the maintenance of public relations when rooting for support both during and outside election cycles (Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, 2013). A quantitative assessment of the routine uses of social media among politicians in Norway and Sweden found that overall, Facebook and Twitter were used irregularly, meaning on average once per day (Larsson and Kalsnes, 2014). Another study by Larsson (2015) examines levels of permanence on Twitter used by MEPs and found that actors from new member states made use of the social networks more frequently than those from “established democracies” (Larsson, 2015). Similarly, Larsson and Kalsnes (2014) found that Facebook was used more frequently among “underdogs”, i.e. younger European politicians and those in the opposition. Focusing on the use of media channels among British MPs, Jackson and Lilleker (2004) too, found levels of increasing permanence among the use of online media channels, political PR purposes, or “relationship management”, as they call it. Here, permanence is defined by the
8
regular up keeping of websites or updates via e-mail newsletters targeting home constituencies.
Interactivity-Overhauling Traditional Communication Structures?
Interactivity is a central aspect in both, the literature on e-governance as well as that on the use of social media for political purposes. Enabled by features such as hyperlinks, feedback loops or polling devices (Stromer-Galley, 2000) interactivity is the main differentiator between web 1.0 and its successor, web 2.0. It is also considered the driving factor in the context of e-governance (Chadwick, 2008; Jackson & Lilleker, 2009). Interactive features are believed to have the capability to transform traditional forms of communication by providing the means for both horizontal and vertical interaction. As a consequence, all users can act as sender/content producers and receivers interchangeably.
An analysis of British party websites produced ambivalent results (Jackson & Lilleker, 2004). On the one hand, they found that websites did in fact provide forums for interaction. Yet, it was also found that beyond superficial communication, spaces for public deliberation on these platforms were scarce. Research on the use of web 2.0 and social media tools by local governments in Europe showed that they were used primarily for the provision of information rather than encouraging dialogue or “e-participation” (Bonson et al., 2012). A study on the adoption of micro-blogs and Twitter during the 2009 EP elections found that interactivity in the form of reciprocated following decreased the more followers a candidate had (Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, 2013). This, so the authors argue underscored the use of social media as a one-way medium (Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, 2013.)
9
All in all, research to date is pointing towards low levels of interaction between political actors, parties, institutions and voters thereby supporting the normalization thesis (Bonson et al.; 2012; Jackson & Lilleker, 2004; Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, 2013). Yet researchers acknowledge that the infancy of online communications in the context of parliamentary democracy to date may play an important role with regard to these trends.
Communication Objectives
A number of studies have created categories of communication objectives with regard to the use of online communication channels (Chadwick & May, 2003; Dai & Norton, 2007; Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2013). These typologies are crucial when
establishing the context of e-governance. They help determine whether political communications online are primarily used for the delivery of services and or/ information or whether it is taken a step further with the aim of transforming public administration, both of which are thought to ascribe different meanings to the notion of e-governance (Moon 2002; Torres, Pina & Acerete, 2006). Qualitative research found that MEPs considered online communications as a tool for political mobilization (Anderson & McLeod, 2004). Likewise, feedback loops, identified by Stromer-Galley (2000) as important enablers of two-way political communications were indeed considered important instruments by MEPs (Dai & Norton, 2007). However in line with other research, Dai and Norton (2007) found that MEPs do not use web 2.0 features to their full potential.
A quantitative examination of online communication activities of MEPs, Lilleker and Koc-Michalska (2013) found that they used online networks mainly as
10
one-way channels to provide information. Communication tools encouraging participation and interaction were rare and usually employed by younger MEPs
(Lilleker & Koc-Michalska, 2013). Chadwick and May (2003) developed three models of interaction used for the assessment of e-governance, namely those of managerial, consultative and participatory. Their analyses of official EU communication policies, too, showed that online communications were predominantly designed to manage communication flows rather than to engage with constituents beyond the provision of information (Chadwick & May, 2003).
Overall, the literature on the use of social media has made two interesting observations: It is evident that politicians and institutions have adopted online channels in general and social media in particular as a new tool for political communication purposes. Yet, the degree to which these new tools were found to be used seems to fall short of the idea of a revolutionized form of governance and representation. Rather, limited evidence of new forms of interaction appear to support the normalization thesis (Bonson et al.; 2012; Jackson & Lilleker, 2004; Vergeer, Hermans & Sams, 2013). However, research acknowledges the early stages of online communications at this point, underscoring the need for a more thorough understanding of the use of online communication channels by political actors.
III. METHOD
Data Gathering
This study is based on qualitative data gained through interviews and questionnaires conducted with key stakeholders in the communication activities of the European Parliament in Brussels. The qualitative nature of my research enables me to gain
11
insights into the mechanisms, patterns and processes that take place underneath the surface of social media. The data was gathered in December 2015. Convenience sampling was employed during the data gathering process (Marshall, 1996). I reached out to potential participants via e-mail, after consulting the list of MEP’s on the
Parliament’s official website. Potential candidates were identified based on whether or not they had official social media accounts on Twitter and or Facebook and whether they were used regularly, which in this case was determined to be at least once a week. In addition, contact was established with members of two Directorates (Relations with Citizens and Web Communications) to put individual MEPs activities on social media in relation with the overall communication strategy of the EP as an institution. In total, I conducted four interviews and received two questionnaires back. Interviews were conducted via phone and questionnaires were exchanged via email.
Research Instrument
The instrument of my research consists of semi-structured interviews and
questionnaires which are based on an interview guide I previously created based on the reviewed literature (see appendix). The research was initially designed to be based solely on semi-structured interviews however, some participants preferred to answer the questions in writing through questionnaires instead. The interview guide consists of a set of questions which touch upon relevant themes and concepts. Each interview and questionnaire started with the respondent describing his or her role within the setting of the European Parliament. Consequently, respondents were asked to describe their professional experiences with social media. The semi-structured nature of the interviews allowed me to encourage the interviewees to elaborate more on themes I
12
deemed interesting. Based on initial findings, the questions of both the interviews and questionnaires were altered throughout the data gathering stage, for a better
understanding of how social media are used by the European Parliament. All
interviews were conducted by the researcher herself, Phoebe Paulus. The interviewer received training during a seminar on qualitative research methods in June 2015.
Sample
The respondents in my research are six key stakeholders within the European
Parliament’s communication activities. The first group consists of a) a member of the Directorate with Citizens, dealing with, among others, visual identity, branding and information campaigns and b) a member of the Directorate General for Media. I consequently decided to name this category “Members of Directorates” (MD) with n=2. The second group consists of two Accredited Parliamentary Assistants (PAs), one of whom is working for a Bulgarian MEP. The second PA works for a British MEP. Their day-to-day tasks involve the assistance in parliamentary work and the carrying out of communication activities. Also included in this sample is an Officer for Media and Web Communications for two MEP’s from the Dutch Groene Links fraction, labeled as “Communications Officer (Com.Officer)” .Consequently, this category was labeled “Communication Managers”. With n= 3 .The last category consists of a Member of European Parliament, herself part of the Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, labeled as “MEP” with n=1. The overall sample consists of N=6. For an overview of the sample and instruments used, see table 1.
13 Table 1. Composition of the Sample
Respondent 1 Respondent 2 Respondent 3 Respondent 4 Respondent 5 Respondent 6
Role MD MD MEP PA PA Com. Officer
Instrument Interview Interview Questionnaire Questionnaire Interview Interview
Bias and Validity
Due to time and resource management, interviews were conducted via phone.
Therefore, my research cannot draw on nonverbal or contextual data as much as face-to-face interviews would have allowed for (Novick, 2008). Yet, the lack of said non-verbal cues from the side of the interviewer also reduces the impact thereof on the interviewee. Moreover, phone interviews are thought to create a level of comfort provided by familiar surroundings and can in fact help to increase rapport (Novick, 2008). Questionnaires on the other hand did not allow for improvisation during the data gathering process yet they removed possible moderating bias from the side of the interviewer altogether. Whilst the questions were adapted slightly accordingly to the participants’ areas of expertise and developed further throughout the data gathering process, the sensitizing concepts remained the same overall. After the interviews were transcribed, they were sent back to the respondents for a member check, to ensure the validity of the information obtained. Likewise, in the case of the questionnaires, respondents were contacted several times for clarification of wording and the interpretation thereof.
14
Sensitizing Concepts, Concept Indicators and Coding
Qualitative research affords the researcher the opportunity to examine a specific field of interest by identifying themes and patterns that contribute to causal mechanisms of interest. Said themes and patterns can be referred to as “sensitizing concepts” as established by Blumer (1954). Originating from theory, sensitizing concepts are used to guide the interviewer through the process of semi-structured interviews. The
intention is to avoid suggestive questioning which causes bias among the interviewees. As the reviewed literature indicates unanimously that the use of social media for political communication purposes is a novel phenomenon, I decided to formulate the sensitizing concept of interest for this research as “exploring social media”. This concept guided me through the data gathering process. By taking into account that social media use among political actors and institutions was an ongoing learning process, I was able to discover emerging trends and patterns and to place these into context.
In the first step, open coding was conducted to obtain an overview over the data and to discover first patterns and themes. Consequently, selective coding was
conducted during which similar terms were merged into the same code. All coding was done by hand. After the creation of code groups, the following dimensions were
identified: D1) Being Present; D2) Audience Considerations; D3) Managing Communication Flows; D4) Interaction D5) Differences. In the following step, the main concept, to which all dimensions were related, was identified. Here, “Exploring Social Media”, already determined as the sensitizing concept, was indeed confirmed as the best fit for all coded groups in the data. It was therefore determined as the concept under which the dimensions and their roots were subsequently analyzed (Strauss,
15
1987). (see appendix for list of open codes, selective codes and concept indicator model).
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Concept
“Exploring social media” was identified as the concept that best described the data at hand. Consequently, the dimensions discussed below all indicate what can be referred to as the “first generation of digital democracy experiments” (Loader & Mercea, 2011). On an institutional level, social media were adopted by the European Parliament in 2008 as tools for communicating with the public. It was at about the same time, that individual MEPs started exploring social media as well: “For us, exploring the
possibilities of social media was important firstly because we were simply curious, and secondly, because we saw it as a great opportunity to communicate with the outside world (...)”. In the following, the dimensions and their roots that have emerged from the data will be presented. Each section will be concluded with a brief discussion of the findings.
Dimension I: Presence
The first dimension that emerged from the data was labeled “Presence”. It was touched upon by most respondents either directly or indirectly as both a communication goal as well as a reason for their own social media activities overall. It was often mentioned in terms of “being present” or “showing face”. In line with previous research, the underlying understanding is that in this day and age, one simply had to be active on social media (Larsson and Kalsnes, 2014).The importance of social media in modern
16
parliamentary democracy has become extremely evident throughout this research. Just as private citizens have adapted to new social platforms such as Facebook or Twitter in recent years, so have their elected representatives. Yet where private persons use it predominantly for leisure and entertainment (Papacharissi, 2010), social media have become important tools for political actors and institutions alike as the following statement underlines: “We are one of the most active institutions online because we think we should be where the people are, providing them with interesting pieces of news and with tools to reach and engage with their representatives.”
Roots of “Presence”
This dimension “Presence” is rooted in such notions as “getting exposure” or “being
where the people are”. Thus, social media in general but Facebook in particular, can
be understood as a market-place, in which a multitude of actors are competing for public attention. Furthermore, respondents said they published content several times a day and across different channels, yet primarily on Facebook and Twitter. These findings seem to represent an emerging trend of constant activity which was not evident in previous research (Larsson & Kalsnes, 2014). They also underscore the speed with which social media practices are adopted and evolve over short periods of time.
Dimension II: Audience Considerations
The second dimension of my data can be labeled as “Audience Considerations” and comprises all opinions and considerations expressed by Members of the European Parliament and its Directorates vis-à-vis the general public. The way in which the
17
participants referred to those they communicate with online helps understand the rationale upon which said communication takes place. Likewise, the identification of channels and the use of these channels with the purpose of targeting specific groups has been mentioned within this dimension. All these considerations help us understand the underlying learning processes which guide political actors and institutions in the online sphere.
Roots of “Audience Considerations”
This dimension is rooted in terms of the description and targeting of audiences as well as the identification of suitable channels. Interestingly, “Followers; Fans; Audiences
or Europeans” were the main descriptions used when participants discussed whom
they talk to on social media. However, when asked about whom their audiences exactly are, respondents often referred to demographic indicators such as country of origin, age, or level of knowledge on EU affairs. Targeting specific groups via social media was mentioned by one respondent as follows: “I want to connect with my
constituents, Labour Party members or supporters, my peers, NGOs, media and (...)
researchers”. Likewise, respondents expressed strong channel-audience preferences
disputing the suggested “mismatch of communication channels” (Larsson and Kalsnes, 2014). Twitter was referred to as a channel mainly used to reach out to political
professionals, other MEPs and most importantly, Journalists: “In terms of Twitter we found that this tool is most helpful to keep interested parties such as political
professionals or journalists in the loop concerning the day to day activities of the EP”. Another respondent added: “(...) LBC Radio, BBC Radio and the Independent newspaper all picked up news stories about the UK floods and refugees as a result of
18
Twitter”. Facebook on the other hand is used to communicate with the general public or as one respondent added: “Twitter is not a broad citizen tool, like Facebook”. In short, the two most used social media channels are targeted at different audiences and thus serve as distinct tools for political communication purposes.
Dimension III: Managing Communication Flows
The management of communication flows, constituting the third dimension in my data is a central aspect of the interviewees’ day-to-day work. Social media were identified as a tool to reach out to different audiences in an instant to communicate important developments and news from within the EP. Moreover, social media were appreciated as a direct mode of communication with the general public by circumventing the traditional mass media as an intermediary. This, so one interviewee explained, meant that no interpretation was added to a piece of communication prior to reaching its audience. Interestingly, the “underdog” theory (Larsson & Kalsnes, 2014) was indirectly picked up by one respondent in this context: “As establishment and media become more narrow and less neutral, with vested interests holding sway, social media will become more important for left-leaning politicians.”
Roots of “Managing Communication Flows”
This dimension is rooted in the formulation of communication strategies,
communication output and organization. One respondent pointed out that social media enabled him to make use of several networks in one instance, increasing the effect and likelihood of exposure of the content published, such as an important speech by his MEP or the outcome of a vote in Parliament. The term “campaigning” was used
19
frequently among MEPs and/or their staff. However, when respondents mentioned campaigning as a communication strategy or goal, they were referring to what one may call “awareness campaigning”. In this context, respondents also referred to
concerted campaigns, such as the creation of the hashtag #climatemoments during the
Climate Summit in Paris to raise awareness for the negotiations. Meanwhile, the notion of “raising awareness” was also mentioned as an objective for online communications: “(…) To present the breadth of my work and interests to constituents and sectoral organizations, to communicate my socialist, humanist and compassionate values, to
learn more about the things that I am working on, to raise awareness of state
sponsored oppression, to give a platform for those who don’t have a voice”. However, that these concepts fit into the framework of professionalization is illustrated by the following statement: “The purpose is to be out there, to show a face and to
communicate with audiences without having to pass an intermediate threshold like national media. All this helps to raise awareness for our MEPs and their work. What we do online is therefore, maybe even primarily, publicity and PR for the Groene Links MEPs.” These findings seem to add a new perspective to the debate on permanent campaigning which has previously solely used in relation to election campaigning in the classical sense (Strömbäck, 2007).
Interestingly, the matter of reducing the quantity of communications online was touched upon several times: “I would even go so far as to say that we need to improve
our means of communications still and (...) reduce the quantity and make it more
manageable by individuals”. A Parliamentary Assistant expressed caution: “There is a trend nowadays for people to be too overwhelmed by communication from social media so they tend to ignore messages via social media channels”. These findings
20
touch upon the “communication deficit” when considering the aspect of “inefficient provision of information” (Thiel, 2008). The reduction of communication output is a remedy suggested from those who are in charge of communicating EU affairs to the public.
The use of paid posts, as opposed to organically reaching audiences, was solely mentioned by a member of the Directorate for Relations with Citizens. Junker’s 2015 state of the Union address was promoted on social media and had become the EPs most viewed publication to date. By doing so, the EP reached users on Facebook beyond its traditional group of followers. The significance of such activities is underscored by recent research which suggests that “accidental exposure” to politics on social media can help increase political engagement and participation online (Valeriani and Vaccari, 2015). When examining the communication management of actors within the European Parliament, it becomes evident that in this day and age, media and social networks are used in a highly sophisticated manner. Therefore, the suggestion of one of the respondents, that political actors have become “social
media experts” themselves, seems particularly apt.
Dimension IV: Interaction
The notion of Interaction has found strong resonance among the respondents.
Generally, interaction was encouraged, or formulated as desirable by the respondents. Yet, when interaction takes place, it usually does so in the form of what one may refer to as horizontal, rather than vertical structures, as the MEP explained: “Sometimes I put up posts and come back later to discover long, heated conversations between
21
their disagreements although debate is a good thing but not rudeness or abuse”. Similar views were expressed by a Member of a Directorate: “(...) When discussion does take place, we do aim to moderate these, especially in cases of trolling. Whilst we accept the diversity of political opinions as expressed on our official pages, we do not
tolerate hate speech or racism”. In terms of their own role, it seems as though
respondents primarily understand themselves as the moderators of their own public platforms. Whereas they provide the initial input, in the form of a text, picture or video, their followers then go on to interact with the input as well as one another.
Roots of “Interaction”
Besides the formulation of role perceptions, the dimension of Interaction was found to be rooted in the notions of “hesitance” and “engagement”, all of which were
reoccurring themes throughout the data gathering process: “I have noticed that our users (...) are hesitant to use our platforms for public deliberation. Of course it does happen from time to time but it seems as though there are only a few people who
voice their opinions, a loud minority so to say”. This is important when discussing
the limitations of social media as a tool for political communication. Respondents noted the difficulty to engage people in open and appropriate discussions on EU affairs via their social media channels. Interestingly, this applied both to the EPs institutional channels as well as individual MEPs online pages.
Furthermore, prior to a vote on TTIP in summer 2015, MEPs of the bloc of Greens in the EP introduced an online tool shared via social media where users could track MEP’s intention to vote. In terms of e-governance, this tool is best described as a “passive” participation device and again fits into the moderator role as described by the
22
respondents. Yet, when asked about interactive tools on Facebook that may enable online voting on specific issues, one respondent explained: “I don’t think that we will see online referenda of sorts in the future. MEPs are there to represent the European public as a whole and to take decisions on their behalf. I don’t think that this basic
understanding of parliamentary democracy will or should change.” This statement
is reminiscent of Stromer-Galley (2000) and the suggestion that political actors may be hesitant to engage with the public via interactive communication platform.
The findings from this dimension do not hint towards an overhauling of traditional communication structures in the public realm of social media: Political actors and institutions provide platforms and content while encourage discussions. However, rather than engaging themselves in these discussions, they tend to act as moderators who intervene when boundaries of appropriateness, including hate speech and racism, are crossed. These findings, although adding a new perspective, are in line with the normalization thesis as discussed before. Whilst political actors and institutions have adopted novel means of communications such as social media, they have thus far remained the principal producers and citizens the consumers of political information online.
Dimension V: Differences
The last dimension of my model was named differences and describes the differences in communication styles between the EP as an institution and individual MEPs. It is aimed at finding an answer to the second research question, which seeks to understand the relationship between the communication activities of the European Parliament as an institution and individual Members as political actors. As it has been already
23
established, both parties primarily understand themselves as “moderators” on social media platforms. However, this section will discuss crucial differences within the content that is published by the different actors. Knowing about these distinctions is critical for understanding the mechanisms according to which the European Parliament and its MEPs communicate with the public and vice versa.
Roots of “Differences”
This dimension is rooted in the notions of logic and tone. Poignantly, a respondent working for the Directorate for Relations with Citizens pointed out that within the European Parliament, the different actors adhered to distinct communication rationales. This was largely reflected both in the content they published on social media as well as the tone of communications they employed: “(...) Our mission is to talk about politics in a general sense and neutral tone. As such, the type of communications we do is best labeled as “institutional” whereas that of MEPs individually falls more into the
“political communications” category.“ The statement underscores the complexity
involved in communicating the political processes in the European Parliament. Directorates, such as the one for Relations with Citizens or the Directorate for Web Communications understand themselves as the “facilitators” of interaction between the EP and the general public. Whereas MEPs are encouraged to voice their political views online, the Directorates aim to provide “the tools and information that are useful for following European politics and understand what is at stake, while providing access to all views within the institution”. Interestingly, this understanding was
reciprocated among MEPs and their staff: “The EP as an institution should not have a say in how individual MEPs communicate with the outside world. But as far as I know,
24
there has never been any kind of conflict”. Going back to what was referred to as “communication logics”, another distinction was made. This time, it concerned that of another EU institution- the European Commission: “The Commission for example engages more in corporate communications. (...) They are the executives here and that is reflected in their communication style, too. The EP is certainly the most pluralist place here and debate and discussion are central to the Parliament’s endeavours. We are doing more talking and less publicity.”
The suggestion that within one and the same institution, different
communication logics apply has thus far not found its way into theory. The EP and its directorates seem to pursue e-governance in a narrow, more classical way with a focus on providing information. Individual MEPs on the other hand pursue what is best described as a mix between cause-related permanent campaigning and personal PR.
V. CONCLUSION
The first aim of this research was to provide an insight into how Members of the European Parliament communicate with the public via social media. At this point, social media are seen as a useful tool to spread messages via multiple channels without an intermediary gatekeeper such as national media. Consequently, platforms such as Facebook or Twitter are predominantly used as virtual press-offices by political actors. The manner in which MEPs communicate is best described as permanent, cause related campaigning. In terms of interaction, it was found that political actors primarily behave as “moderators” on their own Facebook pages or Twitter feeds. The findings of my research point towards a first stage of digital experiments within the context of
25
European Parliamentary democracy. In line with previous studies, my research supports the normalization thesis. However, it would be premature to conclude that a modernization of democratic representation and governance, in the form of
e-governance, was unattainable. It will be up to political actors, citizens and researchers to formulate objectives for the political interaction in the online sphere. To this end, scholarly debates on the “communication deficit” and the wider discussions on the EU’s legitimacy need to be publicly addressed in conjunction with one another.
Secondly, the relationship between individual MEP’s communication and that of the European Parliament as a whole was examined. Here the findings have revealed interesting differences. The EP and its directorates understand themselves as the facilitators of communication between the institution, its members and the general public. As such, the underlying “institutional communication logic” falls within a conservative or narrow definition of e-governance. Individual Members of Parliament on the other hand are thought to pursue a more personal style of political
communications online. Only when this diversity of communication logics is fully understood, can stakeholders such as researchers or journalists act accordingly. Moreover, taking into account this variation, the concept of e-governance takes on a whole new meaning within the context of the European Union: Whereas the EP and its directorates pursue a more neutral objective of communication, it may be up to future MEPs to provide a new style of citizen representation, facilitated by social media. My research is limited to the point of view of the European Parliament and its different actors. Future research would be well advised to examine whether a revised form of governance is desired by European citizens. Furthermore, it would be
26
Likewise, further research into e-governance in supra-national organizations should help formulate the scope to which e-governance is of use in international contexts. Whilst this research has focused on Facebook and Twitter. In the future, more thorough typologies of different channels and tools, including Whatsapp or Snapchat will be needed as all of which may have different implications in the context of e-governance. Undoubtedly, the ever increasing importance of the internet and social media will continue to shape people’s understandings and expectations towards governance and democracy.
27 References:
Anderson, P. J., & McLeod, A. (2004). The Great Non-Communicator? The Mass Communication Deficit of the European Parliament and its Press Directorate*. JCMS:
Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(5), 897-917.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?. American sociological review, 3-10.
Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government information
quarterly, 29(2), 123-132.
Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. ISJLP, 5, 9
Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet:" e-government" in the United States, Britain, and the European Union.
GOVERNANCE-OXFORD-, 16(2), 271-300.
Dai, X., & Norton, P. (2007). The Internet and parliamentary democracy in Europe.
The Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(3), 342-353.
Dixon, B. (2010). Towards e-government 2.0: An assessment of where e-government 2.0 is and where it is headed. Public Administration and Management, 15, 418-454. European Commission, Directorate General Communication, Public Opinion. (2013). Eurobarometer 40 Years. Retrieved
from:http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Archive/index Gibson, R., Lusoli, W. and Ward, S., 2008. The Australian public and politics on-line: Reinforcing or reinventing representation?. Australasian Political Studies Association,
43(1), pp.111-131.
Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. G. (2009). Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics,
6(3-4), 232-250.
Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. G. (2004). Just public relations or an attempt at
interaction? British MPs in the press, on the web and ‘in your face’.European Journal
of Communication, 19(4), 507-533.
Karp, J. A., Banducci, S. A., & Bowler, S. (2003). To know it is to love it? Satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 36(3), 271-292.
28
Larsson, A. O. (2015). The EU Parliament on Twitter—Assessing the Permanent Online Practices of Parliamentarians. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.
Larsson, A. O., & Kalsnes, B. (2014). ‘Of course we are on Facebook’: Use and non-use of social media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians.European Journal of
Communication, 0267323114531383.
Lilleker, D. G., & Koc-Michalska, K. (2013). Online political communication strategies: MEPs, e-representation, and self-representation. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics, 10(2), 190-207.
Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media
innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 757-769.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice,13(6), 522-526.
Mak, J. (2005) The EU’s communication policy: A vehicle to strengthen European identity?, Paper presented at the POLIS 2005 conference, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Martins, A. I., Lecheler, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2012). Information flow and communication deficit: Perceptions of Brussels-based correspondents and EU officials. Journal of European Integration, 34(4), 305-322.
Meyer, C. (1999). Political legitimacy and the invisibility of politics: Exploring the European Union's communication deficit. JCMS Journal of Common Market
Studies, 37(4), 617-639.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e ‐government amon
reality?. Public administration review, 62(4), 424-433.
Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?. Research in nursing & health, 31(4), 391-398.
O’Really, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation.
Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Polity.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Strömbäck, J. (2007). Political marketing and professionalized campaigning: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Political Marketing, 6(2-3), 49-67.
29
Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132
Svensson, J., & Larsson, A. (2013). Researching Politicians Online. Identifying Research Directions. In CeDEM13 (pp. 387-394).
Thiel, M. (2008). European Public Spheres and the EU's Communication Strategy: From Deficits to Policy Fit?. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 9(3), 342-356.
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E ‐Governance Deve
Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens.Governance, 19(2), 277-302.
Valeriani, A., & Vaccari, C. (2015). Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
new media & society, 1461444815616223.
Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2013). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477-501.
30 APPENDIX
I. Interview Guide / Questionnaires:
-Can you briefly describe your role as (...) in the EP?
-Which channels do you use in this function to communicate with the outside world? -Since when do you use said channels to communicate with the outside world? -Why do you use these channels for communication purposes?
- How often do you publish/ post or Tweet something?
-According to which criteria do you decide to publish/post or tweet something? -Who do you want to reach with your posts/tweets?
-What would you say is the added value of social media in terms of your own work? -Are u aware of “any codes of conduct” regarding the use of online media in the EP/ among MEPs?
-In your function as (...) how would you evaluate the importance of external communications?
-Can you describe the type of interaction you experience on social media? -What is your overall objective when communicating on social media?
-How do you think that MEPs/ the EP will use online/social media in the future, what are the trends you observe?
-What are the upsides/downsides of using online platforms/ social media to communicate with European citizens?
-In light of everything that has been said thus far, how would you describe your online communication strategy? What is the overall purpose?
31
Question for MEPs/ PAs only:
-Do MEPs engage in concerted social media campaigns to promote certain causes? Can you give examples?
Questions for EP representatives/ Members of Directorates only:
- Within my discipline of political communication, the idea of a “communication deficit” in the EU is widely considered a major factor contributing to EU fatigue among citizens. As a representative for the EP, how would you say does said deficit apply to the EP as a whole and MEPs individually?
-What online tools does the European Parliament provide for EU citizens to participate in the European democratic project?
32
II. Transcripts
Questionnaire I
Role: PA (1)
1)In your function as MEP (PA), which channels do you use to communicate with
the “outside world”?
I use traditional, as well as non-traditional communication channels - phone calls, post, as well as e-mails, Facebook, twitter.
1) Since when do you use said channels?
I have used these means of communication ever since I started working for the EP in 2014. I have of course used Facebook and Twitter before, as a private person.
2) Why do you use these channels for political communication purposes?
It is the way to spread communication messages across different publics. This is really important for the work of my MEP, to get the public to see how hard she works.
3) How often do you post or tweet something?
Every day. Whenever something comes up we consider important.
4) According to which criteria do you decide to post or tweet something?
The content needs to be informative and related to the work we do inside and outside of the Parliament. Some MEPs publish content that is unrelated to their work, too, but my MEP does not like that.
5) Who do you (want to reach) with your posts/ Tweets?
It depends on the message and the target audience. We use facebook and twitter to mainly inform the general public about the work being done.
33
6) Do you sometimes carry out “concerted, strategic” media campaigns with
other MEPs to increase the effects of your efforts?
Yes.If there is a specific issue or an upcoming vote in Parliament, we combine our forces to raise awareness for it.
7) What would you say is the added value of social media in terms of your
own work?
Social media is the way to keep in touch with people, not only personally but also in the professional life. It helps us to reach the public without having to depend on other media outlets.It helps us to stay in touch with our constituency at home and our colleagues here in Parliament.
8) Are you aware of any “codes of conduct” regarding the use of online
media among MEPs? Have you received media training of any kind?
Yes, there is media training provided both to MEPs and to Assistants.
9) In your function as MEP (PA) how would you evaluate the importance of
external communications?
It is of high importance, MEPs are representatives of the European people and as such need to stay in touch with the public. Social media is a great way to do so.
10) In your opinion, what makes for good content and why?
Anything that is shocking, funny, different. A photo is usually a must, especially on facebook.
11) What are the responses/ response rates among your followers to specific
34
It highly depend on the post...Generally we find it quite hard to engage people...Maybe we haven’t found the right tone yet.And of course it is easier to reach a large following who publish content in English, rather than Bulgarian as we do.
12) How do you think that MEPs / the EP will use online/social media in the
future, what are the trends you observe?
Social media are there to stay. Other than that it is hard to say because everything changes all the time.
13) What are the downsides of using online platforms /social media to
communicate with European citizens?
Not everyone is using social media equally. Twitter is barely used in Bulgaria, for example. Many older people tend not to (or can't) use social media too. Also, there is a trend nowadays for people to be too overwhelmed by communication from social media, so they tend to ignore messages via social media channels.
14) What are the upsides?
Whatever the downsides, social media still remains the most effective tool to reach out to the general public quickly, efficiently and at no cost.
Questionnaire II
Role: MEP
1) In your function as MEP (PA), which social media platforms do you use to
communicate with the “outside world”?
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp
35
I started using Twitter when I was originally asked to join the Euro candidates list in April 2013 and I like it very much as a political platform. I use it 24/7 - I ask my staff to pre-programme tweets around key political issues and human rights campaigns. I also engage with Twitter directly myself and find the time to do this whilst travelling on trains which I do a lot. I started using Facebook when I went to Brazil with a group of young people in 2010 as it was a way to communicate with people back home sharing our experiences. I have 2 Facebook accounts - a personal identity which has remained open throughout my political journey. I did not make it private as I wished people to see that I was an ordinary human being. I have however more than doubled my `friends' although I do not know all of them personally. I have enjoyed the way that people from my previous creative life are now engaging with people from my political life - there is discussion, debate and learning across different worlds. I also have a political FB page which I do not get so excited about as it is harder to encourage a wide following. Most of the posts on my political page come from my Twitter account so if people follow both it is not that interesting. However the videos of me speaking in parliament are on my political page and that is useful. I have just begun to use
WhatsApp so I am a novice!
3)Why do you use these channels for communication purposes?
Twitter can be highly political and attract the attention of key figures and the media. I have learnt how to attract followers and also how to provoke interest in an issue, for example LBC Radio, BBC Radio and The Independent newspaper all picked up news stories about the UK floods and refugees as a result of Twitter. Facebook helps me practice difficult debate, allowing me to sharpen my arguments and be more
36
persuasive.Both platforms have also introduced me to opposite views, alerting me to the challenges we face in respect of extremism and fascism.
4)How often do you post or tweet something?
I tweet many times a day, sometimes original tweets but also many retweets.
I have not used my personal FB account much over the past 6 weeks as I locked myself out of my account and weaned myself off it, but I would normally put up posts and comments several times a day.
5) According to which criteria do you decide to post or tweet something?
I am driven by my desire to stand up against injustice and be a voice for vulnerable, marginalised people, so I tweet about these things. I also tweet about things linked to my constituency in the NW of England, particularly Cumbria, and I tweet about the arts, education, gender equality, alternative economics.
6) Who do you (want to reach) with your posts/ Tweets?
I want to connect with my constituents, Labour Party members or supporters, my peers, NGOs, media and academics/researchers.
7) What would you say is the added value of social media in terms of your own
work?
It is very hard for MEPs to communicate using traditional press and media so being very visible via social media helps to demonstrate our work and values.
8) Are you aware of any “codes of conduct” regarding the use of online media
among MEPs? Have you received media training of any kind?
No although my party warns against making inflammatory statements and colleagues suggest not retweeting, re-posting things likely to cause controversy.
37
9) Can you describe the type of interaction you experience on social media?
I have followers who I can guarantee will make comments on both FB and Twitter and sometimes that becomes a conversation that others join in with. Sometimes I put up posts and come back later to discover long, complex heated conversations between opposing views. I have once or twice had to ask FB friends not to use my space for their disagreements although debate is a good thing but not rudeness or abuse. I have also been the victim of very nasty personal attacks, especially on Twitter, including sexually abusive remarks from far right trolls and UKIP supporters. I now block people like this and have reported some in the past. There are some friends who are on 'UKIP watch' who will often counteract lies, myths and attacks from this direction.
10) What is your overall objective of when communicating via social media?
To present the breadth of my work and interests to constituents and sectoral
organisations, to communicate my socialist, humanist and compassionate values, to learn more about the things that I am working on, to raise awareness of state sponsored oppression, to give a platform for those who don't have a voice.
11) How do you think that MEPs / the EP will use online/social media in the
future, what are the trends you observe?
As establishment press and media becomes more narrow and less neutral, with vested interests holding sway, social media will become more important for left-leaning politicians. I think that applications such as Thunderclap will become more common and Instagram which I have not used as yet. Sending tweets without images never feels right these days.
12) What are the upsides/ downsides of using online platforms /social media to
38
The Downsides are: Language, translation and Eurospeak can create misunderstanding and confusion. Trolls can take over your feed so your own important posts get
submerged. Twitter is too short for complex issues.
The Upsides: It gives a platform for people who would not normally be heard. We politicians take note.It is a dynamic tool for young people.It crosses all kinds of borders.
Interview I
Role: Member of Web Communications Unit
1) What online tools does the European Parliament provide for EU citizens to
participate in the European democratic project?
Besides our main website (www.europarl.eu) in 24 languages and the social media presence by the Information Offices in the Member States, you’ll find our main active social media profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram. Newshub… And,and, and. We are literally on every channel that there is!
2) How does the EP adapt to changing social and political developments in terms of building relations with the average citizen in the online sphere?
The EP as an institution is active on social media since 2008. We aim at informing European people where they are active online and to reach audiences which are not familiar with our institution and its work. With 2 millions fans, we are the third institutional organization on Facebook, after Unicef and The White House. We also developed the Ep Newshub which aggregates everything the Members of the EP publish online - this allows to follow the political voices of the Parliament live.
39
3) How would the ideal relationship between the European Parliament and individual citizens/ groups in Europe look like in the context of online communications?
Ideally, they would follow what is happening in the institution and feel engaged
enough to interact with the Members of the European Parliament. But of course, reality looks a little different. It is often just journalists we interact with or provide
information for.
4) How do you in your function work towards such a relationship?
We produce news in 24 languages, we animate a dozen of platforms. We also train MEPs for better use of their own social media presence. We do a lot to facilitate a rapport between the EP and the and the general public. But sometimes, there is only so much you can do.
5) Can you describe the kind of people that you aim to reach with your Unit`s communication efforts?
We do not discriminate. We are interested in reaching all Europeans who are somehow active on line.
6) In terms of relations with citizens, which part of the EP do you believe has more possibilities to establish rapports with the public- the institution or individual members (MEPs, PAs others)? And why?
Every part has a role to play. The Members are the real actors of European politics and they can express their views and debates issues. As an institution, we inform about what is happening and what is decided. We provide the tool and the information that are useful for following European Politics and understand what is at stake, while providing access to all views within the institution.
8) Are the approaches different between say, the way in which your Unit communicates with the public and the way in which MEPs do the same? Why?
40
They can be more political. We remain neutral and we respect a strict political balance among the views we report. That’s how we understand our role within the Directorate.
9) Is the goal for the entire EP to speak with one voice? If not, why?
The institution has developed a strong voice online, with adapted tonality for each platforms.The EP is composed of 751 Members and they all have their voice, which is the real richness of this institution.
10) How would you say do the online communication efforts of the European
Parliament fit into the wider concept of “e-governance”?
We are one of the most active institution online because we believe we should be where people are, providing them with interesting pieces of news and with tools to reach and engage with their representatives.
Interview II
Role: Member of Directorate for Relations with Citizens
00) On your LinkedIN profile you describe as one of your goals to “make the European Union a leader in the field of political and institutional
communications”. Can you explain why there is a need for this and how you hope to achieve this goal?
I am convinced that the European Parliament, as a representative for the European People needs to be as advanced as possible in its communication with citizens. We employ different ways and techniques to ensure continuous interactions with citizens. In this context, it is important to distinguish between the EP´s communications and those of individual Members of Parliament, both of which follow their own logics if you so will. My Directorate and others are there to serve as neutral points of
41
information and contact. In this function, our mission is to talk about politics in a general sense and neutral tone. As such, they type of communications we do is best labeled as “ institutional” whereas that of MEPs individually falls more into the “political communications” category. Beyond that, we are there to facilitate MEPs communications with the outside world.
1)What tools does the European Parliament provide for EU citizens to participate in the European democratic project?
Social Media has of course become a major element in the EPs communication strategy in recent years. However, we observe that on the EP’s official site on Facebook for example, people do not engage as much in political discussions and deliberation as we had initially anticipated. However, when discussion does take place, we do aim to moderate these, especially in cases of trolling. Whilst we accept the diversity of political opinions as expressed on our official pages, we do not tolerate s hate speech or racism. This is why we use our social media presence on Facebook primarily to get important information out there, which is sometimes a bit difficult due to Facebook’s own algorithms which in effect reduces the number of people we reach organically. From time to time, we do also pay for promoted post, as in the case of Junker´s recent State of the Union Address, which has become the EU’s most viewed post ever. In terms of Twitter, we found that this tool is most helpful to keep interested parties such as political professionals or journalists in the loop concerning the day to day activities of the EP. From our point of view, Twitter is not a broad citizen tool like Facebook, where the audience is probably a little more diverse. Overall however, we are present on literally every online platform.
42
3) How would the ideal relationship between the EP and individual citizens/ groups in Europe look like?
We are very much interested in direct contact with citizens. We know we still have a long way to go but we are constantly working on improving these relations. In terms of direct contact, we already have a constant stream of visitors coming to the European Parliament. Each MEP actually has a certain quota and groups of 20-50 people can come visit him/ her and get a tour around the Parliament as well. In recent years, the EP has become a major tourist attraction Brussels and we are currently building a new visitors centre/ museum which depicts the history of the EU. We discovered that generally, the knowledge of the EU institutions and their work is still very low. On the other hand however, we found that the EP is the most trusted institution in the EU which I believe is to a large degree due to its openness and approachability which has certainly been facilitated by social media.
4) How do you in your function as Director for Relations with Citizens work towards such a relationship?
Overall, the image too bureaucratic and technocratic. Our aim is to give the EP a more human face and enable discussion and conversation between our institution and the citizens. This we also try to achieve through branding, although I prefer to call it “perception management”.
5) Can you describe the kind of people that do in fact reach out to the EP and seek to build a relation with the institution as such?
That differs from platform to platform. Due to its nature, our Facebook pages primarily attract the demographic of people between 18-34 year olds, which make up nearly 50% of our followers there. The second biggest group are those between 34-55 year olds. Our Followers are spread across Europe of course but we are especially happy about or
