Online Campaigning in Russia: Evidence from the 2011 StateDumaElection

Abstract

Despite the continuing growth of Internet use in Russia, there remains little systematic analysis of online election campaigning. This article presents an in-depth, multi-method analysis of party and candidate online activity during the 2011 State Duma election campaign-arguably Russia's first 'Internet election'to ascertain the extent to which new social media is changing politics in Russia. The main findings indicate that the Internet did indeed help to level the competitive playing field during the election campaign period, but despite the growing number of Internet users, the overall level of on-line engagement remained weak. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the Aleksanteri Institute, Finland, for a two-month research stay in 2011/12. during the official 'intensive campaign' period (November 6-December 3 2011). Although primarily concerned with supply-side issuesthe way parties utilised the Internet for their campaignsthis article also considers demand-side issues, including engagement with party and candidate social media by Internet users. The first part of this article provides essential background, including a discussion of the factors limiting or encouraging online campaigning for this election. Part two then examines the scope of internet use during the campaign, presenting analysis of 910 candidates competing on party lists in 20 regions across the Russian Federation. Part three provides detailed analysis of candidate use of LiveJournal and Twitter social networks. The conclusion and substantive argument forwarded in this article is that even though United Russia and its candidates enjoyed a clear superiority in web-presence over its competitors, there was none the less evidence of equalisation, as the online message of the remaining party candidates converged on an anti-United Russia theme. However, while providing a rare platform for opposition to launch, at times, vitriolic attacks against United Russia and the authorities, there was little evidence that candidates were using social networking sites to directly interact with and mobilise the electorate. At the same time, the overall weak engagement by candidates with social media during the campaign period was matched by an equally weak engagement with partisan sites by Internet users. Taken together, this questions the overall impact of the online campaign and raises questions as to the real potential of the Internet to affect political change in Russia. What to expect online? Mixed messages leading into the campaign Although there is documented use of the internet by Russian parties as far back as the 1999 State Duma election (Semetko & Krasnoboka 2003), the fact that user numbers have lagged behind European and North American levels means that research on political parties and the Internet remains largely confined to the latter, although with increasing exceptions from other parts of the world, in particular from Asia (see Kluver et al. 2007; Tkach-Kawasaki; Wang 2010, etc.). In the Russian case, the 2011 State Duma election stakes a claim...

The Digitalization of Russian Politics and Political Participation

“…Television and print media have played an important role in political campaigning and media ownership is generally seen as an important factor in explaining election outcomes, most notably Boris Yeltsin's victory in the 1996 presidential elections. 3 The parliamentary elections of 2011 were the first in which the Internet played a role of significance in how election campaigns were run, resulting from both the increase of Internet access and the expansion of online party presence in the years preceding it (Roberts 2015;Samoilenko and Erzikova 2017). While party websites appeared already at the time of the 1999 parliamentary elections, by 2011 political campaigning via social networking sites had become a common feature.…”

“…and Yabloko [party of social-liberal orientation, M.W.] managed in the whole of the campaign, literally swamping the tweets from other parties," while amassing 600 videos on its YouTube channel by December 2011 (Roberts 2015(Roberts , 1235.…”

“…Analyzing the online campaigns of 910 candidates representing the seven political parties that were successfully registered for the elections, Sean Roberts found that only 111 of them (12%) maintained either a website, a Twitter account or a LiveJournal blog, while this percentage was markedly higher among United Russia candidates (43%) (Roberts 2015(Roberts , 1236(Roberts , 1238. However, a significant number of these accounts were dormant during the campaign period, suggesting "that United Russia candidates were being forced to use social networks by the party leadership making them at best reluctant web users, at worst 'dissenters' by deliberately failing to maintain their accounts" (Roberts 2015(Roberts , 1245. Notwithstanding United Russia's more extensive online activities, Roberts found "evidence of equalization [a relative leveling of the political playing field in favor of opposition parties, M.W.…”

“…Notwithstanding United Russia's more extensive online activities, Roberts found "evidence of equalization [a relative leveling of the political playing field in favor of opposition parties, M.W. ], as the online message of the remaining party candidates converged on an anti-United Russia theme" (Roberts 2015(Roberts , 1229.…”

Political Parties in Indonesia and the Internet: A comparative analysis

“…The presidential campaigns of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, which resulted in huge success, had brought out the importance of personalized political communication and the commodification of digital media as effective electoral tools (Bimber 2014;Cogburn & Espinoza-Vasquez 2011;Gerodimos & Justinussen 2015). Thus, cyber-campaigning has become an increasingly important in achieving victory in political race, and more candidates began to adopt this approach Gibson & McAllister 2015;Roberts 2015;Koc-Michalska et al 2016).…”