Strategies of Serbian Political Parties

CEU eTD Collection

Political Mobilization via Social Media – Strategie – Media Social via Mobilization Political CEU Department Program Politic Science: in of MA Political One-year In partial fulfillment of the requirements forIn of Ar Master the degree the fulfillment of of partial Supervisor Department of Political Science Science Political Department of Central European University Central University European Political Parties Parties Political By Visnja Filipovic By Visnja Filipovic Budapest, Hungary Hungary Budapest, Submitted to Submitted : Professor : Toka Gabor 2011-2012 May 2012 2012 May

s of Serbian Serbian s of al Science ts ts CEU eTD Collection 6. Research 6. design ...... Research 5. questions ...... 4. Theoretical 4. framework ...... 3. Literature 3. Review ...... Introduction 2...... 1. Abstract 1...... Table Contents of 10. Appendices 10...... Conclusion 9...... Discussion 8...... Analysis 7. of on-lineparty strategies ...... 6.1. Sampling 6.1...... 4.2. 4.2. Politicalparties in Serbia 2012...... 4.1. Social 4.1. Networks and Political Organizations .. Appendix– interview 1 The guide ...... 7.2. Targeting...... 7.2. Content 7.1...... Quantification 6.4...... Qualitative 6.3. content analysis ...... Qualitative 6.2. interviews ...... 7.3. 7.3. Motivation ...... 4.2.3. 4.2.3. Parliamentary elections2012...... 4.2.2. Serbian 4.2.2. party discourse ...... Serbian 4.2.1. party system ...... i

...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 6 ...... 28 ...... 32 ...... 11 ...... 29 ...... 11 ...... 13 ...... 54 ...... 17 ...... 6 ...... iii ..... 47 ...... 1 .... 52 .. 54 . 25 . 32 25 .. 4 40 43 3 1

CEU eTD Collection References 11...... Appendix– 4 The codesheetfor content analysis of Appendix– 3 The codesheetforqualitative the anal Appendix– 2 The codesheetforqualitative the anal ...... ii

ysisradical of discourse ...... ysisprogressive of discourse ...... postsrelated to youngpeople ...... 59 ...... 58 ...... 60 ... 63 CEU eTD Collection possibilities of online mobilization and of insufficient mobilization online knowledgepossibilities medi about the new pages, which is consisted of qualitative content analysis, intervie analysis, content qualitative of consisted is which pages, different the of analysis the After way. possible best potential voters on two major social networks – Facebook and Twitter. and Facebook – networks social major two on voters potential brings in the world of communication – the reduction of campaign costs, campaign of reduction the – communication of world the in brings mainly the widespr mostl advantages were that The social for networks. reasons of Serbia in parties political key that concluded I data, of curr their promote will that way a in it use will they that Se of specificities the with accordance in advantages those use ta group easy t Another is assumption gatekeeping. and content filteringmechanisms of and precise of possibility the communication, way media in political communication, are at least aware of the ma the of aware least at are communication, political in media infor insufficiently although Serbia, in parties political that strategies the developed 2012 May in elections parliamentary for polit major whether investigate to is paper this of aim The Abstract1. iii

parties and their Facebook and Twitter Twitter and Facebook their and parties ent position in Serbian party system in a in system party Serbian in position ent ical parties in Serbia that were running running were that Serbia in parties ical med about the possibilities of social of possibilities the about med in advantages that social networks social that advantages in rbian political environment and environment political rbian for online mobilization of their of mobilization online for wing and simple quantification quantification simple and wing y did not recognize the main main the recognize not did y rgeting and the weaker weaker the and rgeting My main presumption is presumption main My hat political parties will parties political hat the possibility of two- of possibility the ead skepticism about ead about skepticism a in general a general in CEU eTD Collection became popular several years before. Therefore, it is fai is it Therefore, before. years several popular became networks social where countries Western in unlike years, two past networks social of number The late. rather it did they parties became significantly elevated. Statistics shows that, for ex for that, shows Statistics elevated. significantly became 1 t since media, social of potentials communication the in interested S the that assume to in justified also is It still strategies. communication are Serbia in parties political while media, ma their with communicating with experience large-scale a have we as capacity this recognized parties political Serbian started using extensively that purpose.in it vote new of mobilization for tool favorable a as media social politi and Politicians potentials. communication enormous its and media communicat of field the from exclusively not are that society the user its of habits daily and life everyday also but environment, c to began it that extent the to developed been had it since ever focus the in been has 2.0 Web called often is what of formation The Introduction2. olwr. oee, f e osdr ht hs set f political of aspect this that consider we diff if However, sharing followers. and accounts corporative own their creating started Internet users in the country. the in users Internet the with compared 76.99% and population, entire the to compared 43.05% is The data from socialbakers.com, accessed on 23 on accessed fromsocialbakers.com, Thedata 1 Therefore, it is natural that parties and other political organi political other and parties that natural is it Therefore,

rd of April 2012. 2012. April of 1

ll, but unlike developed Western political Western developed unlike but ll, r to assume that Western parties already parties Western that assume to r ample, Facebook penetration in Serbia Serbia in penetration Facebook ample, users in Serbia rapidly increased in in increased rapidly Serbia in users process of development of their their of development of process hange not only the existing media existing the only not hange erbian political parties are highly highly are parties political erbian s n pry ebr ad they and members party and rs s. Naturally, many structures of of structures many Naturally, s. such as Facebook and Twitter Twitter and Facebook as such ion became interested in new new in interested became ion aktn i sil e and new still is marketing in target groups via social social via groups target in rn cnet wt their with contents erent of communication experts experts communication of he number of their users users their of number he a pris recognized parties cal total number of of number total zations CEU eTD Collection ate va w lret oil ewrs Fcbo ad Twitter and Facebook – networks social largest two via parties than strategies online different have may parties political politi the managing for hired experts communication and politicians ruling party discourse and current political situation, is suffi is situation, political current and discourse party ruling of specificity The parties. Western developed more other from differenti networks may usage social experience in of lack However, the only not develop activitie for winning-strategies political “selling” their important groupsimportant of questions. mobil the investigate deeper to try will I research this In space mobilization. political for environment political the of specificity the whether determine ra Theref period. may campaign the in parties they political of communication because far, so studied been has that case other t make specificities those All organizations. political some antysystemi cause may and Serbia in democracy young vulnerable accum those all time, same the At programs. pre-election their parti political which for and moment, this at facing is Serbia are etc. Union, European the joining about uncertainty boarders, state pov unemployment, corruption, partocracy, clientelism, government, opposi powerful system, value distorted society, divided Extremely quest the media, old via communicating of process the with compared experts communication for even and politicians for unknown relatively 2

zto srtge o Srin political Serbian of strategies ization he case of Serbia different from any from different Serbia of case he parties from Western democracies. democracies. Western from parties es should provide solutions through solutions provide should es cient reason to believe that Serbian that believe to reason cient s on social media. on socials media. shapes the practice of using online online using of practice the shapes ulated problems are the threat for threat the are problems ulated Serbian party system, especially system, party Serbian , and to give answers to three three to answers give to and , ial cag te aue of nature the change dically ore, it would be interesting to to interesting be would it ore, c mood among citizens and citizens among mood c erty, unsolved problem with with problem unsolved erty, cal marketing succeeded to to succeeded marketing cal tion, weak and inefficient inefficient and weak tion, only some problems that problems some only ion arises whether both both whether arises ion in Serbia, especially especially Serbia, in ate Serbian case Serbianate CEU eTD Collection oiia pris ae h bget oeta t sced n on-li in succeed to potential biggest the have parties political hr gop f usin i daig ih at on-line-mobili party with dealing is questions of group Third be group of theirWhich primary will interest? of users potentia new getting voters, new gaining support, wider obtaining politica Are oriented: target-group is questions of group Second of kind discourseWhat promoting? voters? are those messages social trough addressing parties political are messages seve includes it and message-oriented is questions of group First n hs ae s eemnd y urn pltcl iuto i Se 6 on in place took elections situation political current by determined is case this in partie political relevant to down narrowed is analysis The media? gi are they that importance of degree the is What targeting? prima their are What group-targeting? in strategies main main patterns and strategies of on-line main patterns mobilization. and strategies mobili on activity their track to easier was it Therefore, pol for motivated more were orga they means political which campaign, other the conducting than networks social on active more were parli on running were which parties to only research the of scope One furtheranalysis. the from excluded are agenciesgovernmental orga political Other account. into taken are elections the for running th of May 2012, only the leading parties and party coalitions that we that coalitions party and parties leading the only 2012, May of 3

zation via social media and to identify to and media social via zation media as a channel for targeting new new targeting for channel a as media s in Serbia. The criterion of relevancy of criterion The Serbia. in s y ol o we i cms o group- to comes it when of goals ry ving to mobilization trough social trough mobilization to ving e oiiain Wa ae their are What mobilization? ne zation strategies: what kind of of kind what strategies: zation l parties primarily interested in in interested primarily parties l amentary elections is that they that is elections amentary rbia. Since the parliamentary parliamentary the Since rbia. of the reasons for limiting the limiting for reasons the of a dlma: ht id of kind what dilemmas: ral mmes r ciit, etc? activists, or members l nizations such as NGO-s or or NGO-s as such nizations nizations since they were were they since nizations itical mobilization. mobilization. itical re re CEU eTD Collection oiia pris n eba n oiiig e spotr, not supporters, new mobilizing in Serbia in parties political atcpns n h cmuiain Teeoe n wne ta te firs the that wonder no Therefore, communication. the in participants n oil ewrs atog ter an etr i cmlt freedom complete is feature main their although networks, social on control absolutely to parties of need The influence. reverse a people many as traditi reach messages of partisan "extension" to is the important only was networks social on “Campaign theirto Facebook pages. and Twitter cont copy-pasting mostly were they and communication two-way of media traditional using were they as similarly networks social sta They Beograd). Centar (Media used” was sphere online the of “vi that was analysis content quantitative and qualitative conducted ove Their voters. potential and supporters their with communication the aware are Serbia in parties political whether investigate the and parties political six of activities the researchers analyzing of team The media. online of monitoring the implemented (2012) Trends” “Media named project the run foundation Adenauer Konrad dom the in recently done been has research significant one However, marketing. about literature relevant no almost is there Namely, Serbia. is literature relevant to comes it when difficulty main The Literature3. Review 6 o completely monotonous, be.”Beograd) should Centarthan it (Media and unconvincing uninventive, as described be can country th of May 2012. They were focused on their activities during the elect the during activities their on focused were They 2012. May of

4

ir leaders in the period from 6from period the in leaders ir of key advantages of social networks in in networks social of advantages key of the lack of research on the territory of of territory the on research of lack the the communication was obvious even even obvious was communication the i i osbe u nt opoie a provide to not but possible, is it s the utilization of social media by by media social of utilization the – they did not use the advantages the use not did they – even in the field of political political of field the in even ted that political parties used used parties political that ted rtually no intrinsic advantage advantage intrinsic no rtually ents from traditional media traditional from ents onal campaign. What was was What campaign. onal ain of media-monitoring. of ain t online campaign in the the in campaign online t ion campaign in order to to order in campaign ion rall conclusion after they after conclusion rall n eult o all of equality and n junlss was journalists and within which was was which within th of April to to April of pposite pposite CEU eTD Collection ate. lo te epr nlss f eba pltcl syst political Serbian of analysis deeper the Also, parties. 2 15 on published was that Voter-Hunting” Sta for stated Stoiljkovic Zoran omission, this for reason the As However, besides this research and several articles publis articles several and research this besides However, see for fight noother to place his way arena.” the in political a are networks social circles, educated more and younger of support new the into enter to wants someone If parties. new of appearance ex an be would it and parties, reformist and modern of choice the typ “this words, his In communication. two-way in up come easily “trick avoid to wanted simply parties political that argued of different wasneglected strategies condu party the analysis when strategi online the of investigation deeper the for done been has For example, “Online Voter-Hunting” by Marko Nedel Marko by Voter-Hunting” “Online example, For

th February 2012. that it was done on purpose. He He purpose. on done was it that 2012. February jkovic, published in Status magazine in February 20 February in magazine Status in published jkovic, 5

hed in popular newspaperspopular in hed em and its specificities were mostly mostly were specificities its and em qetos ad rtqe ht may that critique and questions” y cted. cted. e of communication should be should communication of e nomenclature and to gain the gain to and nomenclature u Mgzn atce “Online article Magazine tus es of major Serbian political political Serbian major of es great mechanism for that. I that. for mechanism great cellent framework for the the for framework cellent 2 , very little little very , 12 12 CEU eTD Collection n gvn ie eid te mut f nelgnefntoaiy t intelligence/functionality of amount the period, time given any inf that distance the communication, of cost and speed the alter “can in Internet and networks social of architecture the in interested fiel the from experts character, its change significantly everyda of world the into penetrate to started media new the When r of amount significant the that restraint without said be can it and networks social of domain the in work previous the to comes it When 4.1.SocialNetworks and Political Organizations ideology thestandpoints, brief existence. and of history their par 2012. for running were that Serbia in parties political major purpose the for importance great of is it end, the In Serbia. ex is that literature a is there second, and Serbia, of system lit significant a is there First, well. as groups important part political about literature The strategies. party online of field the in research relevant previous presenting is group communic world the in bringing (not) are they that changes and nature potentials communication its media, social of structure the with p this for importance biggest the of are that groups important soc is interest of subject which literature the From Serbia. liter the second, and media, social with deals that literature the justifi the and formulation the and framework theoretical general bigges the of are issues theoretical and literature of kinds Two Theoretical4. framework 6

erature that is investigating the political political the investigating is that erature d of communication were primarily primarily were communication of d plaining dominant party discourses in in discourses party dominant plaining e i Sri cn e iie i two in divided be can Serbia in ies of further analysis to briefly present present briefly to analysis further of social media that is concerned with with concerned is that media social ial media, we can single out two two out single can we media, ial articular topic. First one is dealing is one First topic. articular liamentary elections – their main main their – elections liamentary t importance for the creation of of creation the for importance t esearch had been already done. done. already been had esearch cation of my hypotheses – first, – hypotheses my of cation tr aot oiia pris in parties political about ature general. Network technologies technologies Network general. and major debates about their about debates major and hat can be transferred, the the transferred, be can hat ormation can travel within within travel can ormation ation. The second relevant second The ation. cmuiain n to and communication y political campaigning, political CEU eTD Collection basic ways in which this network of networks differs from the ma the from differs networks of network this which in ways basic than centralized and few-to many). If we consider the technical technical the consider we If many). few-to and centralized than m and (distributed communication of mode new a of effect an as understood expression cultural of dynamism and variety bewildering “The terms and of reception transmission contents. of mediated comp in different significantly is media new the Internet. that agreement of invention the with occurred that communication mediated fi the in scientists for interesting particularly was What 41) communi parties the of perceptions the and communication, of act an to interdep and relationship the flows, information of richness and density ces n cnet alw t rcies o ban oe rfud m information filters are that present media. old in freer profound communication more the obtain makes to “independence”, receiverscharacteristic, to allows content” and access an message the transmitters, between connection direct allows of First media. old of era the in present was that communication s only not communication of way new of a making are that nature Internet” the three stressed profoundly (2003) Cornfield changed and Mayer example, Internet For communication. of invention the that agreement expert communication among accepted widely nowadays is view This mult segmented a (involving margins the (Terranova 2004, 64) to broadcasters) of handful stea be can flow message particular ar a that receivers so frequencies of space closed a synchronizing by operate not 7

eld of communication is the change in in change the is communication of eld med from a central point (involving a (involving point central a from med ud ige r iie nme of number limited or single ound d recipients. Further, “the depth of depth “the Further, recipients. d on the Internet has often been been often has Internet the on form of the media, one of the of one media, the of form ss media system is that it does it that is system media ss rsn ih h od ei in media old the with arison pecific, but also superior to to superior also but pecific, of gatekeepers and other other and gatekeepers of them is”interactivity” that that is”interactivity” them endencies among parties parties among endencies ad hr i a general a is there and s cating.” (Garcia 2002, (Garcia cating.” iplicity of viewers).” viewers).” of iplicity hr i a general a is There an poie of “promises main any-to-many rather rather any-to-many essage. The third third The essage. mediated mediated CEU eTD Collection party members. As the justification for this, they designed the designed they this, for justification the As members. party Naturally, all those changes resulted with further changes in com in changes further with resulted changes those all Naturally, result of adaptation to new circumstances. Bimber,circumstances. new to adaptation of result and experiencemore will institutions political the online moves as and networks, communication in changes of consequence a as changed voic their raise to parties small for chance a created that increase has competition party – happened changes general other network-base with that also but occurred, organization political of argued not that (2006) changes. organizational Chadwick experienced large argued p etc. Flanagin, organizational Stohl, Bimber, Chadwick, also as such but theoreticians, organizations, political within relations and organizational only not shape to started communication network-based a (2003) Bennet Moreover, media. new of nature the with accordance t change to started parties political and politicians networks, rec they Once well. as campaigning political and communication the in changes many brought communication of mean new this course, Of actual organization. actual organization. possible be can organizing political nowadays that stated they far so going were They entrepreneurial. to institutional from moved alongside changed, significantly has pattern interaction that political renewed and management simpler organization, the within partiesarevisi political changesin organizational argued that hi vtr. oiia pris tre t aot e wy of ways new adopt to started parties Political voters. their 8

Stohl and Flanagin (2009) also convincingly also (2009) Flanagin and Stohl e, power diffusion inside the parties has parties the inside diffusion power e, with the pattern of engagement that that engagement of pattern the with ble trough less organizational levels levels organizationaltrough less ble apinn, rmrl de o the to due primarily campaigning, more institutional changes as the as changes institutional more heir communicational habits in in habits communicational heir model on which they explained they which on model munication between parties and and parties between munication d with reduced campaign-costs reduced with d even without the existence of of existence the without even ognized the potential of social social of potential the ognized d communication shift many many shift communication d power of the wider scope of of scope wider the of power in their argumentation that that argumentation their in nd many others argued that that argued others many nd ten isl. Many itself. atterns only the hybrid types hybrid only types the ht oiia parties political that world of political political of world vrdy politics everyday communicational CEU eTD Collection parties. They argued that, while traditional types of parties of types traditional while that, argued They parties. clas than strategies on-line different using are that party” On the other hand, Lofgren and Smith (2003) Smith and Lofgren hand, other the On I wasgroupsspecific before indubitably voters, the impossible of describing, are they that campaigning of concept” “marketing fr feedback the get to Internet charge of capabilities in interactive are that professionals while technologies, web-based targeting direct the by characterized are use media of ways new without possible be not could stage third of characteristic campaig permanent since communication, based network and Internet of i are Cycle” “Third called so of Characteristics development. develo resource development, technical – dimensions main three account ca the trough alternating were that cycles campaign different post-F rudimentary is that cycle Third or campaigning” modern in transformed has campaigning that emphasized (2002) Farell and (C campaigning permanent of possibility the and cost-reduction and channels mostly as a complement for other forms of political political of forms other for complement a as mostly channels and Grassroots “The and mass-parties emancipator for typical is part cartel strategy, mass-party – strategies different “emancip named they that analysis their in forms hybrid two mass-part less or more as classified roughly be can still they change, communicational the with occurred that parties modern the the of In spite parties. political modern of strategies

gave a profound analysis of four different on-line different four of analysis profound a gave 9

y strategy, “The Consumerist strategy” that that strategy” Consumerist “The strategy, y sis about organizational transformation of of transformation organizational about sis ies and cartel parties. They also added also They parties. cartel and ies sic parties. Further, they analyzed four four analyzed they Further, parties. sic strategy” that is used by elitist cartel elitist byused is that strategy” om their potential supporters. New New supporters. potential their om use new informational technologies informational new use via e-mails, video-mails and similar similar and video-mails e-mails, via ndubitably shaped by the invention invention the by shaped ndubitably ator mass party” and “elitist cartel “elitist and party” mass ator technical developments. The new new The developments. technical nternet era. nternet mpaigning history, taking into into taking history, mpaigning hadwick, 2006). Schmitt-Beck Schmitt-Beck 2006). hadwick, especially easier targeting of of targeting easier especially communication or during the the during or communication ordist. They analyzed three three analyzed They ordist. argued that political parties political that argued of campaigning rely on on rely campaigning of ht hy ald “post- called they what ig ht s h main the is that ning mn ad thematic and pment CEU eTD Collection members before.became more than they were in-charge f more and centralized less became parties some communication, is it – parties some in occurred might change organizational that targeting direct of possibility the and gatekeeping weaker communicat two-way of possibility campaign-costs, of reduction “m By strategies. mobilization online their creating while they that and particular, in networks social and general in Internet re mainly Serbia in parties political that suppose will this to even applied be can above given premises main some that eve in media social and Internet of penetration extensive the with in case the is it as development technological of extent same Icase of not Serbiaand is before, the the it United As in States. stated mos analyses their based who scientists from comes field this ke should we premises, theoretical these all of spite in However, multi-directional a “organizationless”, is that organization of political partie political traditional of patterns organizational changed Inter new that above from argument the confirms analysis Their the onlymembership electronic the also but not supporters, with communication includes that strategy” Grasroot “The is interesting supporters their with communication two-way constant establish to pri extensively, more it use parties of types new campaign, 10

cognized some of the main advantages of of advantages main the of some cognized . I will also assume that it is possible is it that assume also will I . marily to capture public opinion and and opinion public capture to marily i avnae” il e considered be will advantages” ain s and allowed completely new types types new completely allowed and s tly on cases from Western Europe Europe Western from cases on tly Western democracies. However, However, democracies. Western case. Therefore, in this paper I paper this in Therefore, case. not impossible that, in terms of terms in that, impossible not started to use them extensively them use to started ep in mind that all the work in work the all that mind in ep ion with potential supporters, supporters, potential with ion amne n ht “regular” that and ragmented ryday life, it can be assumed be can it life, ryday net technologies profoundly profoundly technologies net nd communitarian. nd communitarian. possible to speak to possible about the in the virtual organization. organization. virtual the in and members. Especially Especially members. and electronically mediated mediated electronically CEU eTD Collection alaetr eetos n 6 on elections parliamentary mefcin i te lcoa sse rsle wt a entire an with resulted system electoral the in imperfections of ambitions high corruption, of tradition long the However, system. the and parties small of merging the encourage to effort an as versa. vice and system party the in changes influenced system studie who generally Serbia, of system party the and electoralsystem Goati, Vladimir and Stoiljkovic Zoran as such authors, Many secure to order in coalitions pre-election form to forced often There 5%. of threshold high relatively with constituency, one only with competitive highly is that system multiparty a has Serbia system party Serbian 4.2.1. media. m their also but style, campaign electoral their only not shape polit key of standpoints political main and discourse party dominant belie strongly I system. party Serbian of specificities fragmented and unstable. Since I will include leading politica leading include will I Since unstable. and fragmented changing party specific truly and of creation the to contributed immensely Turbulent Serbia. in situation political current about Se analysi thorough achieve to possible not dominant is it Twitter, and Facebook of strategies mobilization analyze to intend I Since 4.2.Political partiesin Serbia 2012. th f a 21, wl gv te hr oeve o ms striking most of overview short the give will I 2012, May of 11

ve that uniqueness of Serbian party system, system, party Serbian of uniqueness that ve concluded that changes in the electoral electoral the in changes that concluded . The electoral system is proportional is system electoral The . system that is extremely polarized, polarized, extremely is that system l parties that were running for the the for running were that parties l y ifrn otoe Nowadays, outcome. different ly The high threshold of 5% was set was 5% of threshold high The obilization strategies on social social on strategies obilization their places in the parliament. parliament. the in places their eeomn o sal party stable of development s without general knowledge knowledge general without s ical parties will significantly will parties ical small political leaders and and leaders political small ba pltcl ate on parties political rbian fore, political parties are parties political fore, oiia environment political d profoundly the the profoundly d CEU eTD Collection accessed on April 23rd 23rd April on accessed However, there were several cases of manipulation w manipulation of cases several were there D’Ond However, 5%, of threshold the with system proportional 4 3 parties. ruling the of interests the with accordance wa system electoral the 1992, in Serbia in introduced was system party the of institutionalization of level low the for blamed also rul “the and system electoral the of changes frequent relatively identificati party of level low relativelysupporters, their fragile by caused is that years twenty last of period the is reason the place, first the In instability. this instabilit influenced great the Stoiljkovic out Serbia. in system point party the of institutionalization to importance immerse of is It minorities. out movements, and parties political registered 88 has Serbia five relevant parties with emphasized ideological distance be distance ideological emphasized with parties relevant five charact is Serbia in pluralism polarized of system the that pluralisti “polarized as system party Serbian classified Kom systems, party of typology Sartori’s following Therefore, cooperate to wit unwillingnessleadership of and parties aspirations rel party internal of dynamic the is system party the of the threshold was increased to 15% (Stoiljkovic 200 15%(Stoiljkovic to was increased threshold the th 1997. in elections parliamentary on example, for hr wr svrl ae o mnplto i te el the in manipulation of cases several were There governme Serbian of website the from data Official 3

6, 152 – 156). 156). – 152 6, e number of constituencies was increased from 9 to to 9 from increased was constituencies of number e ith the threshold and constituencies in the followi the in constituencies and threshold the ith 12 ’ sse o vts itiuin n nn constitue nine and distribution votes of system t’s ectoral system of Serbia. In 1992. was introduced introduced was 1992. In Serbia. of system ectoral nt, nt,

4 Of course, one of the key factors for this state this for factors key the of one course, Of http://www.drzavnauprava.gov.rs/article.php?id=784 c system”, while Stoiljkovic (2006) added added (2006) Stoiljkovic while system”, c relationship between political parties and and parties political between relationship on and distinct antipartism. Furthermore, antipartism. distinct and on a great oscillation in party strength in strength party in oscillation great a ations and cleavages, alongside with with alongside cleavages, and ations erized by the existence of more than than more of existence the by erized tween them and the existence of so- of existence the and them tween of which 49 are parties of national national of parties are 49 which of es of the game” in general can be be can general in game” the of es (2006) noted that several factors factors several that noted (2006) sic, Pantic and Slavujevic (2003) (2003) Slavujevic and Pantic sic, ytm Sne h multiparty the Since system. h eachother. s changed several times in in times several changed s y and the low level of of level low the and y ng years – – years ng 29, while while 29, ncies. ncies. the the , , CEU eTD Collection eas te odr ewe “ets” n “ihit ideologica “rightist” and “leftist” between border the because practical change, major debates about those changes and overall overall and changes those about debates major change, practical party system and the party discourse in Serbia will beparty presented and i the Serbia party in will discourse system behalf of the term “party discourse”. There are several rea several are There discourse”. “party term the of behalf oppos strongest the after diminish to started parties between sustainable before, became too blurry in the light of recent cha recent of light the in blurry too became before, sustainable an sustainable not is division This outdated. quite is that spectrum wi “ideology” term the of equation improper “ of danger term considerable the misreading of danger the removes usage its also opeesvns o te ie rne f hnmn (o ol ideas only (not phenomena of range wider the of comprehensiveness 5 thoughts. l have which ideas to coentire “discourse”to wordpertains the movements, and organizations mainly refers “ideology” term the While term the abandon things, other among will, I analysis, further my In discourse party Serbian 4.2.2. right moderate of position the to closer get to strived and rhetoric na abandoned leaders new their because mainly forces, opposition in napredna (Srpska Party Progressive September Serbian SRS, from originated in disintegrated SRS), – stranka radikalna (Srpska ideologi the on that notice to importance immense of is it However, possib the exclude mutually that oppositions” “bilateral called For further explanation look at dictionary.referen at look explanation further For 5 o ol ta te od dsore hv a rae maig n terms in meaning broader a have “discourse” word the that only Not

ce.com ce.com 13

sons for this terminological change. change. terminological this for sons ition party, Serbian Radical Party Party Radical Serbian party, ition ility of governmental cooperation. governmental of ility nges in past ten to twenty years. I years. twenty to ten past in nges n following chapters. ideology”. Namely, there is a a is there Namely, ideology”. . This and other changes in the in changes other and This . stranka – SNS), took primacy took SNS), – stranka ymore in Serbian party system system party Serbian in ymore communication of ideas), but but ideas), of communication blat atog i was it although ballast, l 2008. The new party that that party new The 2008. cal spectrum the distance distance the spectrum cal “party ideology” on the the on ideology” “party h taiinl left-right traditional a th bt hi hsoia and historical their but , ed political and social social and political ed mmunication of politicalof mmunication inlsi ad populist and tionalistic of CEU eTD Collection parties. period of disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1990s, when nationalistic fee nationalistic when 1990s, in Yugoslavia of disintegration of period and later Socialist Party of Serbia, were only exis were only Serbia, of Party Socialist later and the problem of state boundaries is still unsolved due to Kosovo probl Kosovo to due unsolved still is boundaries state of problem the entered finally discourse progressive of parties the when 2000, moderat the took and weakened largely has 1990s during present was party experienced a big ideological transformation transformation ideological big a experienced party 8 7 concl wrong the to lead may its name in “socialist” 2 until party ruling the was which Party, Socialist 6 ideologicalevident changes highly transfor those that key influenced the social inde Kosovo and war Yugoslavia, of disintegration communism, of crash the historical the in deep too go to necessary is it that think not do Party of YugoslaviaPartyof SPS), – Srbije partija (Socijalisticka Party Socialist leade its and SRS) - stranka radikalna (Srpska Party Radical e in discourse this promoted that parties Major increased. suddenly nationa and rightist predominantly is discourse party radical The radical and progressive. predomina two are there nowadays that argue will I Furthermore, eba pry ytm n ti i as oe f h re the of one also is this and system party Serbian hy This position. left-wing the kept SPS ownership) positio program some in However, one. nationalistic (“party discourse” instead of “party ideology”) ideology”) “party of instead discourse” (“party Although the word “socialist” in the party name ma name party the in “socialist” word the Although offici was system multiparty the when 1992. Before that confusion the mention to isimportant also It 6

7 , and its leader Slobodan Milosevic.leader Slobodan its and ,

ting parties in the time of socialism. timesocialism. of the in parties ting 000, was the rightist nationalistic party, although party, nationalistic rightist was the 000, usion that the party was actually leftist. leftist. was actually party the that usion might occur with party names. For example, Milosev example, names.For party with occur might brid type of the party is not the only case that ca that case only the not is party the of type brid sn wy dcdd o nrdc te terminological the introduce to decided I why asons ally introduced in Yugoslavia, Communist Party of Y of Party Communist Yugoslavia, in introduced ally rm rdmnnl lfit eaiain at t th to party egalitarian leftist, predominantly from y refer to the leftist party, it was not the case – case the not was it party, leftist the to refer y s msl i oe rltd o h eooy n te p the and economy the to related ones in (mostly ns 14

the official successor of old Communist Communist old of successor official the 8 Nowadays the nationalistic feeling thatfeeling nationalistic the Nowadays the government. However, since since However, government. the analysis of political parties after parties political of analysis r Vojislav Seselj, and Serbian Serbian and Seselj, Vojislav r nt party discourses in Serbia – Serbia in discourses party nt itc I oiiae fo the from originates It listic. arly 1990s were Serbian Serbian were 1990s arly lings and ethnical hatred hatred ethnical and lings m sm apcso the of aspects some em, fr, seily after especially form, e pendence, but it is is it but pendence, mation of political ofmation political the word word the n be found in in found be n in 1990s this this 1990s in ic’s Serbian Serbian ic’s ugoslavia, ugoslavia, e rightist, rightist, e change change ublic ublic CEU eTD Collection became the main pivot of the new pro-European ideas. After After ideas. pro-European new the of pivot main the became spir national of perseverance the on concentrated primarily 06 Hwvr i i aporae o oe ht l pltcl pa political all that note to appropriate is it However, 2006) c regime successful the after soon but power, the from Milosevic pr all of coalition This DOS). – Srbije opozicija (Demokratska Democr formed eventually is, truly community international entire unre how and war the of absurdity the realizing started who spirit, Europe Western of countries the in educated Politicians stronger. Milosevic’s to opposition and attitudes anti-war when 1990s, mid in roots l predominantly is discourse party progressive contrary, the On asinvestments, well as the membership potential NATO in and the Europe oppose governance, centralized and unitary support generally discourse part terms, policy In nation-state. the of interests on focused r values those of Praising etc. nation, Serbian of superiority uncondit the people, Serbian of bravery the family, traditional ofte parties radical that values Traditional Kosovo. of territory tha monasteries and churches orthodox and heritage cultural to reference st medieval Serbian where land”, holly “Serbian as nominated often ra in common is It values. traditional with problem Kosovo relate wit Kosovo preserving for advocacy their in Additionally, country. the of ter and sovereignty terms of in unacceptable would be solution any other and that Ser of borders parti the within stay to has Political Kosovo that advocate discourse 2012. in even strong remained discourse nationalistic 15

it and dignity, and that is politically politically is that and dignity, and it 2000. DOS finally managed to oust oust to managed finally DOS 2000. esulted with the discourse that is is that discourse the with esulted te i Sri ta ae presently are that Serbia in rties ional love for the fatherland, the fatherland, the for love ional church, orthodoxy, are to refer n iberal and democratic. It has its its has It democratic. and iberal e wt peoiaty radical predominantly with ies hange it fell apart. (Stoiljkovic, (Stoiljkovic, apart. fell it hange o-Western parties of that time time that of parties o-Western and rose in the pro-European the in rose and dical rhetoric that Kosovo is Kosovo that rhetoric dical ate was born, with a special a with born, was ate alistic the counteracting to to counteracting the alistic bia regardless of the price, price, the of regardless bia tc poiin f Serbia of Opposition atic privatization and foreign and privatization s ihn h radical the within es an Union. hin Serbia they often often they Serbia hin government became became government rmie o the on remained t ritorial integrity integrity ritorial CEU eTD Collection odr, r te ro ta pris f aia ad rgesv di progressive and radical of parties that proof the are borders, discourse. In addition, especially sensitive problems, such as the the as such problems, sensitive especially addition, In discourse. that solution a require Serbia in situation political contemporary many logic, center” toward “moving besides Also, support. wider a be to out turned that self-image democratic of creation the in 2003) appro of “logic so-called follow They citizens. of number larger that position centrist more achieve to order in attitudes their l and less getting is pluralism” “polarized of model Sartori’s i It representing. are they discourse which determine to easy not polit contemporary many For granted. for taken be not should discourse radi to division the that emphasize to indispensable is it However, and parliamentary theanddemocrac creation of economic stable development signif the Kosovo, of status the for solution efficient and quick for need programs primarilyjoining processes, integration European ofimportance policy their In etc. constitution, the for respect and profe freedom, tolerance, ethnic Europeanization, values, democratic – t values different to committed are They Serbia. of Republic the for care that parties civic as themselves portray often scene party Serbian on discourse ruling the been has discourse it 2000, in regime Milosevic’s of fall the since governing been have coalition. large this from originated discourse progressive within 16

benefit of each and every citizen of citizen every and each of benefit is by default more acceptable for the the for acceptable more default by is ess “polarized”. Parties often change often Parties “polarized”. ess han ones from the radical discourse discourse radical the from ones han for last 12 years. These parties parties These years. 12 last for NATO and European Union, the the EuropeanUnion, and NATO priateness” (Lofgren and Smith, Smith, and (Lofgren priateness” is independent of the specific specific the of independent is Also, since progressive parties parties progressive since Also, problem of Kosovo and state state and Kosovo of problem s mostly due to the fact that that fact the to due mostly s the necessity in order to gain to order in necessity the scourse can share the same same the share can scourse hy sal epaie the emphasize usually they is justified to say that this this that say to justified is cal and progressive party party progressive and cal problems that occurred in in occurred that problems ssionalization, rule of law law of rule ssionalization, ical parties in Serbia it is it Serbia in parties ical icance of privatization privatization of icance ygeneral. in CEU eTD Collection parties in Serbia share “the position on the need for consistent i consistent forneed the on position “the shareSerbia in parties alaetr eetos hy aae t fr te olto gover coalition the form to managed they elections parliamentary 10 9 demokra (Liberalno Party Democratic Liberal Except attitude. methodology” section. section. methodology” oileortc retto ad h rpeettv o progressive of representative the and orientation socialdemocratic m the (DS), Party Democratic around formed is coalition wide This –Boris zivot TadiLifebolji 1. Choice – BorisBetter for (Izbor za Tadic a the furtheranalysis beminority from excluded will because they ones, br will I lists. minority were them of 6 which of out elections, registe 18 were There (RIK). Commission Electoral Republic vot 000 10 least at collect to had lists electoral all elections, thre the pass to had lists electoral all quotient, largest a of m which in system electoral proportional a has Serbia Since membe for elections and elections presidential elections, local held were Serbia in elections parliamentary recent most The 2012. elections Parliamentary 4.2.3. m is division this Therefore, caution. be should taken the of with furtheranalysismethodological and it purposes 199). 2006, (Stoiljkovic solution.” final the as non-ac or Kosovo), in Serbia of sovereignty formal retains (which omd rud oils Pry f eba Scjlsik parti (Socijalisticka Serbia of Party Socialist around formed This is the only party that openly advocates the r the advocates openly that party only the This is Further justification for exclusion of minority pa minority of exclusion for justification Further

rties from the analysis will be in presented in “Re in presented in be will analysis fromthe rties ecognition of Kosovo independence. Kosovoofindependence. ecognition 17

shold of 5%. In order to register for the the for register to Inorder 5%. of shold er signatures and to submit it to the to it submit to and signatures er andates are allocated by the system system the by allocated are andates iefly present all the lists except the except lists the all present iefly on 6on mplementation of resolution 1244 resolution of mplementation red lists for 2012. parliamentary parliamentary 2012. for lists red ja Srbije - SPS) and minority minority and SPS) - Srbije ja s f seby f Vojvodina. of Assembly of rs sa tak – LDP) – stranka tska th ceptance of the independence independence the of ceptance of May 2012, together with together 2012, May of ajor governmental party of of party governmental ajor . 10 nment with the coalition coalition the with nment

c) c) discourse. In past past In discourse. search

ade only in in only ade 9 al key all , CEU eTD Collection oiia dsore Bfr dmcai cags n 00 SS a t was SRS 2000, in changes democratic Before discourse. political pro-European modern, successful, “better, of vision the of promoters were taken from the official website of Serbian Ele Serbian of website official fromthe taken were 3. United Regions of Serbia – Mladjan Dinkic (Ujedinjeni regioni –Mladj –Mladjan Srbije Dinkic3. United (Ujedinjeni Regions of Serbia and Church.traditions Serbian relationship with Orthodox pre the patriotism, and consciousness national of development the nation, Serb of unification the are objectives program main their that offici their Onwith ideological the beliefs. they remained consistent su wide lost SRS Nikolic, of separation the With Nikolic. Tomislav napre (Srpska Party Progressive Serbian and Seselj, Vojislav prisoner war by led SRS, – parties different two into split i party oppositional strongest the became party this regime, (SPS) Serbia of Party Socialist Milosevic’s with government ty a is it and 1991. in formed was (SRS) Party Radical Serbian (Srpska Seselj – Vojislav 2. Serbian radikalna Radical Party –Vo stranka 119000members.the largest (De Serbian parties, morepolitical with than prime assassinated of politics official of successors the Ser in change of engine “the be to themselves declared they when fall the since government the in present was Party Democratic http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/cirilica/propisi_fr 11 achieve not did they that fact the of spite in representatives, They got 22.11% of the votes, while the coalition coalition whilethe votes, the of 22.11% got They

ctoral commission (RIK) commission ctoral ames.htm around Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) got 24.04%. got (SNS) Party Progressive Serbian around 18

accessed on 8th of May 2012. 2012. May of 8th on accessed and the founder of the party Prof. dr dr Prof. party the of founder the and n Serbia until 2008, when the party party the when 2008, until Serbia n d the best result in the elections.the in result best the d minister Zoran Djindjic and the the and Djindjic Zoran minister of Mislosevic’s regime in 2000, 2000, in regime Mislosevic’s of n srna SS, edd by headed SNS), – stranka dna Atr h fl o Milosevic’s of fall the After . ian lands, the unity of Serbian Serbian of unity the lands, ian bia” They are considered to be be to considered are They bia” ia rpeettv o radical of representative pical al website of SRS, it is stated is it of SRS, website al pport that it had before, but but before, had it that pport Serbia”. DS is the one of of one the is DS Serbia”. jislav Seselj) jislav wo times in coalition coalition in times wo mokratska stranka) mokratska stranka) servation of national national of servation an Dinkic) an Dinkic) Results Results 11

CEU eTD Collection politics and new economy” and they are one of the biggest critics biggest the of one are they and economy” new and politics oiia pris ht elr tesle t b lbrl or liberal be to themselves declare that parties political progressive regioni Srbije) (Ujedinjeni discourse. decentralization for stands URS government. the in participating and his “right hand” Aleksandar Vucic were prominent figures in SR figures in prominent wereVucic “rightAleksandar hand” his and leade new The Party. Radical Serbian from secession the after ye few just within change discourse rapid of example best the (Sr Party Progressive Serbian is coalition this of pivot The Let’s – Tomislav Srbiju 5. N Get (Pokrenimo Nikolic Serbia – Tomislav Moving demokratska partija) to commitment open and Kosovo towards politics state official specificity main Their discourse. party same the from comes founded in 2005. after the separation of one fraction of Democratic Par Democratic of fraction one of separation the after 2005. in founded demokratska (Liberalno Party Democratic Liberal is them among unvr olto i a ersnaie f rgesv discourse progressive of representative a is coalition Turnover Jovanovic) 4. Turnover (Preokret – Cedomir Jovanovic –Cedomir the European Union. Its civic, reformist and democratic position cl position democratic and reformist civic, Its Union. European the reforms economic agriculture, in investments larger departization, elrs o e h pry f ih cnr. t a fudd n 02 ad s and 2002. in founded was It centre. right of party the be to declares its and alliance the in party strongest The organizations. and moves alli the as 2010. in formed were (URS) Serbia of Regions United 19

ietra. h ms ifunil one influential most The libertarian. pska napredna stranka - SNS) that is is that SNS) - stranka napredna pska r of the party, Tomislav Nikolic, Tomislav party, the of r the changing for request the is ars. SNS was founded in 2008. in founded was SNS ars. ance of several political parties, parties, political several of ance of the current government that government current the of and strengthening and joining joining and strengthening and n i i cnitd f several of consisted is it and assify it as a representative of of representative a as it assify AO n E. (Liberalno EU. and NATO S, especially after the leader especiallyleader afterthe S, partija - LDP) that was was that LDP) - partija n dvlto o power, of devolution and one i G7, which G17+, is founder ty. They stand for “new “new for stand They ty. ne hn t was it then ince ikolic) CEU eTD Collection property to the Serbian Orthodox Church, the preservation of ter of preservation the Church, Orthodox Serbian the to property int take we if but discourse, progressive and radical between to succeed not did but elections, last won that Serbia in party stated that the main program goals of this party are the rul the are party this of goals program main the that stated one radical the to closer him brought and discourse progressive the m independence, Kosovo towards attitudes c his as well as Union, and European ICTY with cooperation towards attitudes his However, option. among popularity great a enjoyed Kostunica, Vojislav (DSS), leade the apart, fell (DOS) Serbia of Opposition of Democratic representative moderate a of example another is party This Kostunica) (Demokratska Kostunica Vojislav – Serbia of Party Democratic 6. ofthey radicalcan discour beconsidered to a be moderate representative remaine that rhetoric populist emphasized and figures SNS key claim to be pro-European oriented. (Srpska napredna stranka) This This stranka) napredna (Srpska oriented. pro-European be to claim whil conservative, national be to declare they relations internal ide their party, right-centristbut the as themselves declare he SNS w in politics, anti-EU Although and Serbia” “big electorate. for advocating SRS of portion large a withdrew and SNS directi future the about disagreement a Crimi After (ICTY). Yugoslavia International to extradited was Seselj, Vojislav SRS, of 20

ology became unusually ambivalent. In ambivalent. unusuallybecame ology e of law, the return of nationalized nationalized of return the law, of e o consideration the political past of of past political the consideration o greatly changed his position. SNS position. his changed greatly form the government. They are in in are They government. the form r of Democratic Party of Serbia Serbia of Party Democratic of r e in international relations they relations international in e d unchanged from SRS period, SRS from unchanged d on of the party, Nikolic formed formed Nikolic party, the of on ritorial integrity of Serbia with with Serbia of integrity ritorial h spotr o democratic of supporters the radical discourse. After the the After discourse. radical . On DSS’s official website is is website official DSS’s On . a Tiua fr h former the for Tribunal nal party is the largest opposition largest the is party atj Sbj – Vojislav – Srbije partija se. se. ti SS ioi was Nikolic SRS ithin laoain ih the with ollaboration oved him away from from away him oved CEU eTD Collection provenmoral measure action” principles political are the (Dem of h dvlpet f oen eortc oit, ih n mhss n wor on emphasis anpopuli very is rhetoric with their However, stranka) (Reformisticka society, democratic modern of development the goal political primer Their country”. the of decentralization Ni of city the in based party the is (RS) Party Reformist stranka (Reformisticka Visnjic Party9. Reformist Visnj –Milan –Milan (Dveri) anti-global EU, towards skepticism values, family traditional uni the orthodoxy, is movement their of root the in that declare they and Itrepresentative theDveri movement 1999. was that is in political founded is Za Srbije) Serbia 8. DveriLife – (Dveri The of – For zivot equality, Srbij (Socijalisticka partija and solidarity justice”. i it program their In socialdemocratic. basically is that c be can party this Nowadays discourse. progressive to radical Serb of Party Socialist Milosevic’s of successor formal the (SPS) Party Socialist Serbian around formed is coalition This (JS)) Srbija Jedinstvena Par (SPS), Srbije partija Socijalisticka - Dacic (Ivica United of Party Serbia, of Party Socialist – Dacic Ivica 7. “hones that stated also is It etc. boarders, state the within Kosovo 21

tija ujedinjenih penzionera Srbije (PUPS), (PUPS), Srbije penzionera ujedinjenih tija s stated that they advocate for “freedom, “freedom, for advocate they that stated s s that is advocating for “the substantial substantial “the for advocating is that s e) ia and an example of moving towards towards moving of example an and ia s are the fight against corruption and corruption against fight the are s Pensioners of Serbia, United Serbia Serbia United Serbia, of Pensioners ism and the belief in creationism. in belief the and ism lassified as the party of left center center left of party the as lassified and its leader Ivica Dacic. SPS is SPS Dacic. Ivica leader its and st and they have critical attitude critical have they and st okratska stranka Srbije). strankaokratska Srbije). y n rset o te basic the for respect and ty ic) ic) ty of the Serbian people, people, Serbian the of ty of radical discourse kers’ rights. rights. kers’ CEU eTD Collection president Josip Broz Tito. This party is leftist and they p they and leftist is party This Tito. Broz Josip president education, and care health free for stand they program, party privatization posture, they discourse.privatization thebe inside radical can put anti-capitalistic, is anti-systemit eurosceptical. and deeply (Kom rep the as marked be can party this leftist, Although Party. the Broz, Josif is KPJ of figure key the and leader party The Broz) partija BrozParty –Josif 12. Communist (Komunisticka –Josif accession (Socijalemokratskiand savez Srbi economic EU reforms before representati the centerand left partyofa party is This (Socijaldemokrat Lekovic) Lekovic Nebojsa – Alliance Democratic Social 11. governmentIradnika and free stable (Pokret of corruption. seljaka) i – progressive partyis This development. economic engineofthe (PRS) Peasants and Workers of Movement of goal program main The I and 10. Movement Peasants of Workers (Pokret radnika seljaka) oad gvrmn ad h etr pltcl ytm I accordanc In system. political entire the and government towards 22

ve of progressive discourse. In their official official Intheir discourse.progressive of ve reserve the values of Tito’s Communist Tito’s of values the reserve resentative of radical discourse, since discourse, radical of resentative for the strengthening of agriculture of strengthening the for grandson of famous Yugoslavian Yugoslavian famous of grandson unisticka partija) partija) unisticka t stands fordemocratic reforms stands t wt ta ad hi anti- their and that with e is return to agriculture as as agriculture to return is je) je) ski savez – Nebojsa Nebojsa – savez ski CEU eTD Collection capacities to promote the specificities of their current position in S in capacitiespromote to the specificitiescurrent position of their success they whether is question important most The advantages. those soci using are they whether investigate to wanted I Therefore, sp easier filtering, less – content message the to related m the recognized parties political Serbian that assumed I accounts? posting parties Serbian key are messages of kinds what First, questions. form I mobilization, and marketing political to related networks discover already have Serbia in parties political key that re different several have I identified, I puzzle the to Related party-stra of identification the be strategies casedifferentiation t Western respect to with of Serbian would puzzle main the Hence, may differ We by strategies(again,exist) from developed if they that and strategy-shaping the on influence an have may environment suspect to equally legitimate is it Also, mobilization. on-line s parties political that assume to justified is it Serbia, marketi political of purposes for networks social of utilization insufficient to due imposed is question This characteristics. main a networks, social via mobilization online in p strategies developed political whether identify to is research my of purpose The Research5. questions 23

till may not have clear defined strategies in in strategies defined clear have not may till read of information and fast feedback. feedback. fast and information of read that specificities of Serbian political political Serbian of specificities that search questions. By the assumption the By questions. search i avnae o sca networks social of advantages ain ed the main advantages of social social of advantages main the ed ng and mobilization is still new in new still is mobilization and ng stern parties. stern parties. al networks in accordance with with accordance in networks al i ter aeok n Twitter and Facebook their via hat were previously studied. previouslyhat were studied. research in this field. Since the the Since field. this in research erbian party system. arties in Serbia already have have already Serbia in arties nd, if they do, what are their their are what do, they if nd, ed three different groups of of groups different three ed fully use social network network social use fully Serbian party-strategies party-strategies Serbian eis tef n the and itself tegies CEU eTD Collection mobilization. understood and the importance on-line necessity of par which investigate to wanted I Hence, Twitter. and Facebook trough a resources knowledge, equal have not will parties that suspected I Third, which networks? parties the of potential social recognized key networks. the targeting of via abilities social parties The networks. social of users frequent most the are people young the that presumed I Also, voters. of groups specific targeting soci that aware are Serbia in parties major that supposed I parties groupspolitical onsocia targetSecond, who are of the main Serbian 24

l ei i a eclet ol for tool excellent an is media al y are familiar with the fact that that fact the with familiar are y refore, I wanted to investigate to wanted I refore, d oiain o mobilize to motivation nd ties are the ones who best who ones the are ties l networks? networks? l CEU eTD Collection oiia pris n eba I eeoe trese resea three-step developed I Serbia, in parties political were running for the elections are taken into account. Other politi Other account. into aretaken elections the for wererunning Serbia. Since the parliamentary elections took place on 6on place took elections parliamentary the Since Serbia. determined is case this in relevancy of criterion The Serbia. m of scope the limit to decided I above, stated already I As 6.1.Sampling andanotherthe results of vice gained the analysis versa. part trough interviewing in example for segment, one in data of lack the design research specific this use to decided I why reason The andsocialFacebook networks Twitter. - polit res that contents all include the will analysis data Qualitative compare or complement will that producers message and together media social of rese analysis content qualitative a includes my for suitable most is that one the offering, were Ward sugg three of Out problem. the in insight clearer a achieving traditiona of shortages the overcoming in help will which method other “w ana so-called content of combination for the suggested guidelines They 2007). Ward, the and (Gerodimos follow to decided I research my In qualitative interviewingqualitative content analysis, quantificati and the mobilizati on-line about questions to answers provide to order In Research6. design 25

th rch methodology that is consisted of of consisted is that methodology rch of May 2012, only those parties that that parties those only 2012, May of ical parties are posting to two major major two to posting are parties ical y sample only to relevant parties in in parties relevant to only sample y process, can be easily fulfilled with with fulfilled easily be can process, by the current political situation in in situation political current the by is because I strongly believe that that believe strongly I because is ested models that Gerodimos and Gerodimos that models ested with interviews with webmasters with interviews with cal organizations such as NGO- as such organizations cal arch is two-stage model that that model two-stage is arch on strategies of relevant relevant of strategies on ls f otn analysis. content of ults on of data. data. on of cnet nlss and analysis content l eb content analysis” analysis” content eb lysis with some with lysis CEU eTD Collection osblte o te nlss sne hi Fcbo ad Twitt and Facebook their since - analysis the of possibilities First reasons. principal two of because so do to not decided I but parties had to exceed the threshold of 5% in order to get seats in parliament. getto parliament. in threshold of 5% seats order parties in the had exceed to justifiably assumed that these parties may have a lower i lower a have may parties these that assumed justifiably ponudjenih odgovora. odgovora. ponudjenih doline, presevske Albanaca Koalicija Elfic, –Emir Ug Sulejman –dr (SDAS) Sandzaka akcije demokratske without knowing the language of national minority. national of language the knowing without conduc to be hard very would it representing, theyare national minority that incl to I wanted Firstly lists. minority werenational them of 14 13 12 running lists electoral different eighteen were there total, In are previously stated. analysis. further the from excluded are agencies governmental or s language of national minorities, It would be almost be would It minorities, national of language poss be would Montenegrian and Bosnian on pages the o e it te alaet eas ter et ae constitutiona are seats their because parliament the into get to have not do they – minorities national of parties for applicable not nam – system electoral Serbian of specificity from comes furt the from parties minority other and party this exclude to analy inte an the me give to refused pages Szövetség Magyar in Vajdasági lists party those including considering was I when and to compete with other parties. Consequently, assuming that mi that assuming Consequently, parties. other with compete to and Without an interview I would have to rely only on on only rely to have interview would I an Without Albanian Slovakian, Hungarian, are Those languages (Vajd Madjara Vojvodjanskih Savez are: Those lists

Crnogorska partija – Nenad Stevovic and Stranka Nij Stranka and Stevovic –Nenad partija Crnogorska impossible for me to make a proper analysis. analysis. proper a make to me for impossible content analysis, and since I stated that thesepag that stated since I and analysis, content asági Magyar Szövetség) – Istvan Pasztor, Stranka Stranka Pasztor, –Istvan Szövetség) Magyar asági , Romanian, Bosnian and Montenegrian, out of which which of out Montenegrian, and Bosnian Romanian, , ljanin, Svi Zajedno – BDZ, GSM, DZH, DZVM, Slovacka DZVM, DZH, GSM, –BDZ, Svi Zajedno ljanin, ible for me to analyze without a translator. translator. a without analyze mefor to ible 26

13 Related to this, in the phase of the research the of phase the in this, to Related nterest to mobilize via social networks networks social via mobilize to nterest ely, as it was previously stated, all the the all stated, previously was it as ely, ude those lists in the analysis as well, well, analysisas the in lists those ude her analysis. Second reason for that that for reason Second analysis. her for the elections, out of which sixwhich of out elections, the for rview, er pages are on the language of of language the on are pages er to pass this threshold in order in threshold this pass to one is related with objective objective with related is one The reasons for that decision decision that for reasons The l gaate. hrfr I Therefore guaranteed. lly nority parties will have less less have will parties nority 14 i a wl, emse of webmaster well, as sis when I definitely decided definitely I when t the content analysis analysis the content t However, this ruleHowever, is this edan od od edan es are on on are es stranka stranka only only 12

CEU eTD Collection eid eas te ae omd rm oiial ad ideologica and politically from formed are they because period – Prof. dr Milan Visnjic and Komunisticka partija – partija Komunisticka and Visnjic Milan dr –Prof. Socij (PRS), seljaka I radnika Pokret Srbije, zivot lcoa ls o te ao pry ihn h list the within party major the or list electoral Fa official of existence the was relevancy of criterion Another promote common will it activities. the be will thestrongestparty that expectedis it since 18 17 16 15 single were them of seven lists, electoral of rest the of Out further analysis. definitely I identify, to hard be would that strategies developed Liberal Democratic Party) Party) Democratic Liberal of pages (official Moving Serbia Get Let’s party), IvicaDacic and Nikolic –Tomislav Srbiju Pokrenimo coalition lists. coalition analyzing official pages of the key party within the coaliti the within party key the of pages official analyzing inste Face official an have not did coalition the where case In coalition. whole in coalition the of strategy the analyze to decided s or promote the same will same coalition the within all parties that and assum campaign, election the during I better seen be can strategies because elections forthcoming for candidature the be should dec I As general. in coalition the of strategy the or coalition the The condition was having both Facebook and Twitter and Facebook both was having Thecondition choi The – coalitions three with case the was This reg Ujedinjeni –BorisTadic, zivot bolji za Izbor Sesel Vojislav –dr (SRS) stranka radikalna Srpska 16 I had to make a decision whether I will analyze the strategy strategy the analyze will I whether decision a make to had I

aldemokratski savez (SDS) – Nebojsa Lekovic, Reform Lekovic, –Nebojsa (SDS) savez aldemokratski ioni Srbije – Mladjan Dinkic, Cedomir Jovanovic –P Jovanovic Cedomir Dinkic, Mladjan – Srbije ioni Josif Broz Broz Josif j, Demokratska stranks Srbije (DSS) – Vojislav Kost –Vojislav (DSS) Srbije stranks Demokratska j, – SPS-PUPS-JS. –SPS-PUPS-JS. eba Porsie at) n Te unvr (offici Turnover The and party) Progressive Serbian ce for a better life (I analyzed the official pages official the analyzed (I life better a for ce page. page. 27

18 Ot f 2 ifrn lss tre f them of three lists, different 12 of Out . best representative of the coalition and thatand coalition representativethe ofbest -party lists -party on. cebook and Twitter account of the the of account Twitter and cebook 17 I consider this to be reasonable be to this consider I since it is legitimate to presume presume to legitimate is it since ided that criterion of relevancy of criterion that ided decided to leave them out of of out them leave to decided book or Twitter account, I was was I account, Twitter or book imilar contents in this specific specific this in contents imilar ad of each party within the the within party each of ad l coey eae pris I parties, related closely lly 15 , while five of them were them of five while , d ht mobilization that ed of each party within party each of reokret, reokret, isticka stranka stranka isticka unica, Dveri za za Dveri unica, of Democratic Democratic of al pages of of pages al CEU eTD Collection page and Twitter account of relevant political party. I contact I party. political relevant of account Twitter and page rele party for criterion main a as elections parliamentary alaetr eetos Ti ipis dfeet qualitative different 6 implies This elections. parliamentary period was in the peak of the campaign, I had to prevent the refusal the prevent to had I campaign, the of peak the in was period l neves ee odce i te eidbten 16between period the in conducted were interviews All replies. acceptnot send to me their resea my for relevant lists electoral different nine were i she or he whether was interlocutor of choice the for criterion creators as the first step of my analysis. Since I decided decided I Since analysis. my of step first the as we creators with interviews qualitative semi-structured conduct to decided I 6.2.Qualitative interviews Facebook account. party/coali each of sharing information of measure quantitative official party/coalition each of analysis content qualitative 19 c parties/party political different 9 analyzed I Overall, well. fr excluded were they Therefore, Twitter. or Facebook on pages have savez and(Komunisticka Pokret radni partija Socijaldemokratski Jugoslavije, have any other relevant interlocutor for my topic o topic my for interlocutor relevant other any have marketing on-line of charge in was that person the Peasants. and Workers of Movement The and Serbia of the different forms of interviews to webmasters: the possib the webmasters: to interviews of forms different the Three of them refused to give the interview or wer or interview the give to refused them of Three

f interest. finterest. resigned in the middle of the campaign, so the part the so campaign, the of middle the in resigned e out of reach – Serbian Progressive Party, Democra Party, Progressive Serbian – reach of out e Serbian Radical Party was willing to give an inter an give to willing was Party Radical Serbian 28

rch. Three of them did answer at all or did did or all at answer did them of Three rch. aiin ta wr rnig o 2012. for running were that oalitions th vancy in this specific case, the main main the case, specific this in vancy f pi ad 6 and April of ility of face-to-face interview, phone phone interview, face-to-face of ility Twitter and Facebook page and and page Facebook and Twitter ed nine persons in total since there since total in persons nine ed neves ih h webmasters the with interviews s administrating official Facebook Facebook official administrating s tion via their official Twitter and and Twitter official their via tion o e te addtr fr the for candidature the set to of interviewing by offering by interviewing of om the further analysis as analysis further the om mses n message and bmasters st of May. Since that that Since May. of ka Ika not did seljaka) view, but but view, y did not did y tic Party Party tic 19 , CEU eTD Collection month of themonth election campaign 5 – from rel of accounts Twitter and Facebook official on posts analyzed I young interest consisted to of the of topics people. differe of posts the whether discover to wanted I analysis content are networks social the of users frequent most the Since group. a to way the in designed are contents posted those whether discover party their to related specifically contents post to par discourse of tendency the on namely, – posts of nature ideological the on par political different of posts Twitter and Facebook of content get t wasFirst reasons. to one was two for conducted analysis Qualitative content 6.3.Qualitative content analysis gained analysisand a ofFacebook the fulfillment content results of through the wi interviews from information Therefore, posting. the organizing and overall about questions the primarily, – analysis content the from informa the obtain to was interviews qualitative of purpose The (message,strategyresearch-question groups and target-group, effe questions of groups four other the while webmaster, about information of form the was group first – groups topical different five subquesti and questions All electronically. questions the answer to that out turned it end, the In e-mail. via respond to choose webmasters semi-struct for typical not is that guide interview detailed ha I Therefore, interview. e-mail and interview Skype interview, th of 5 April to 29

th of May 2012. “the facesheet” of general and specific specific and general of facesheet” “the ured interviewing, in case that some some that case in interviewing, ured discourse. Second, I wanted to to wanted I Second, discourse. ties. I was primarily concentrated concentrated primarily was I ties. tion that could not be extracted extracted be not could that tion evant political parties in the last the in parties political evant cts-assessment). young people, with the use of of use the with people, young nt political parties are mainly mainly are parties political nt strategy, targeting, financing financing targeting, strategy, ons were roughly divided in in divided roughly were ons d to prepare exceptionally exceptionally prepare to d ttract some specific target target specific some ttract were related to four main main four to related were all the respondents chose chose respondents the all ll be used as an addition an as used be ll ties with different party party different with ties nd Twitter posts. nd Twitter posts. he insight to the to he insight

CEU eTD Collection pictures, video, audio). Therefore, many posts included some of these c these of some included posts many Therefore, audio). video, pictures, 20 referring is that contents.else the body in the those post to of example, in only directly them analyzing was I (for etc.), documents, websites, material written another to link external or audio o body the in when cases In post. each of body the was analysis p allows media social that is state to thing important Another “scholarship”. “s “youth”, “young”, phrases the contained that tweets and posts the anal quantitative simple the do to decided I Therefore, analysis. no made it that small so was people young to dedicated messages d as same the be i However, messages. posted of nature ideological/non-ideological to planned was procedure The division. party the topics the to related posts the analyzed I part, second the In wigettingmaterial before rather familiarized than creating it creating and topics identifying was I – deductive than rather for better is it that decided I manually. posts the all coded crea I theme every Within discourse. each to related are that and material posted re-reading and reading was I Afterwards, partie all divided I analysis, content the of step first the In was analyzing the video directly. directly. video the wasanalyzing c only the as wasgiven link YouTube the video).If was analyzi I theof post, body the in link YouTube For example, if there was a YouTube video in the p the in video YouTube was a there if example, For

ontent, without the further information in the body the in information further the without ontent, ng only the body (the summary, explanation or comme or explanation summary, (the the body only ng ost, but brief summary or explanation given togethe explanation or summary brief but ost, 30

th the contentth of posts. my content analysis to be inductive be to analysis content my 20 of interest of young people without without people young of interest of osting of multimedia contents (text, contents multimedia of osting ted separate codes and in the end I end the in and codes separate ted s related to their party discourse. discourse. party their to related s

trying to identify the main themes main the identify to trying codes while I was reading raw raw reading was I while codes ysis instead – I was counting all all counting was I – instead ysis f the post was a video, picture, picture, video, a was post the f cases where there was nothing nothing was there where cases t turned out that the amount of of amount the that out turned t es t d te qualitative the do to sense newspaper articles, other other articles, newspaper hlr” “tdns and “students” cholars”, ontents. The unit of the the of unit The ontents. rn te nlss of analysis the uring of the post, I I post, the of nt on the the on nt r with with r CEU eTD Collection “Analysis” part. presente be will quantification the of result The hypotheses. my post-counting simple of consisted is It party. each of tweets quantif the is design research my in step methodological last The 6.4.Quantification the as party, “retweets” as other well followers. from c that tweets the included I Twitter On administrator. page the those only analyzed and contents all filtered firstly I Facebook, On 31

and sorting in the accordance with with accordance the in sorting and ome directly from the account of of account the from directly ome ication of Facebook posts and posts Facebook of ication posts that were published by by published were that posts i a eaae al i the in table separate a in d CEU eTD Collection political parties will use social networks in order to promote parties their use political par social will networks to order in rmtn, uh s h polm f rsrig rdtoa vle, va values, traditional preserving of problem the as such promoting, politica key when circumstances, political current in popular ht hy r pooig As, oe hms ihn aia discours radical within themes some Also, promoting. are they what standpoints key their emphasize to more struggle asswill discourse justifiably be can it Therefore, Serbia. of citizens currentl are etc. past, political of glorification the church, Pr etc. government, of efficiency the increasing crisis, economic and unemployment of reduction the Kosovo, of status the resolving EU, the Still results. election previous their from noticed be can which 2000, discourse radical within parties some However, 2000. since system ruli the been has discourse progressive the before, stated I As wa I media, social via transmitted messages of nature the shape specificit the and discourse party that arguing was I Since 7.1.Content content, them: targeting to different related and motivation. sections a the divided and hypotheses main three formulized I purpose, this For campaigning. online successful most the are which parties and posts of inter recipients of subject main three on focused is research further My Analysis7. on-line of party strategies 32

umed that parties within the radical radical the within parties that umed ies of political situation of Serbia may may Serbia of situation political of ies l questions and problems are joining are problems and questions l y of secondary importance for the the for importance secondary of y in recognizing the importance of of importance the recognizing in and to gain more supporters for for supporters more gain to and oblems that radical discourse is is discourse radical that oblems ng discourse in Serbian party party Serbian in discourse ng est: the content of posts, the the posts, of content the est: nted to investigate whether whether investigate to nted ty discourse. discourse. ty also remained strong after strong remained also lues related to Orthodox Orthodox to related lues , their discourse is less less is discourse their , e are highly sensitive, sensitive, highly are e ayi pr i three in part nalysis overcoming the the overcoming CEU eTD Collection progressive discourse. progressive discourse. c discursive more post will discourse radical within Parties H1: best solution for promoting such contents. Therefore, the use of Internetof use the Therefore, contents.promoting forsuch solution best hms ht oh icuss r saig n cvrn ae excl are covering and sharing are discourses both that themes di one within found be can that messages are contents” “Discursive 21 comes fromlikely progre that promote than to their parties discourse wi parties that argue will I networks, social to Transferred as politicallyforwhose inc those canparties rhetoric designated be fil of system strong and developed have that media Traditional t in problematic highly be can themes these within standpoints culture orientation and nationality, with sexual especially deals that ones solve – the problem of Kosovo, unemployment, low stlow unemployment, Kosovo, of problem –the solve the contentIn presented the analysis results of of discur 1and 2are Table Table songs, etc.) funny pictures, disc party the unrelatedto links external and campaign the from cause, a joining (voting, participation for calls etc.), rallies, appearance guest (about contents informative are information excluded By this, I am referring mostly to policy problems policy to mostly referring am I this, By

that parties from both discourses (at least declara least (at discourses fromboth parties that andard of living, corruption, partocracy, etc. partocracy, corruption, living, of andard 33

hn aia dsore il e more be will discourse radical thin invitation for a rallies, etc.), photos etc.), rallies, a for invitation tering and gatekeeping is not the the not is gatekeeping and tering ourse or party policies (YouTube (YouTube policies party or ourse dd rm hs term. this from uded orrect or problematic. problematic. orrect or rs f oiia correctness. political of erms ssive discourse. discourse. ssive net ta pris within parties than ontents scourse only. It means that that means It only. scourse may be the only solution solution only the maybe . The promotion of some of some promotion . The s in TV shows, party party shows, TV in s sive contents. sive contents. tively) want to to want tively) 21 Another CEU eTD Collection forward Looking Europe Example Code Progressive values Theme discursive 1 – The parties progressive contentsTable of Pro-NATO Pro-NATO Pro-EU Integration Diversity Equality Future Tolerance Freedom

NATO as well, in order to solve our disagreements w disagreements our solve to order in well, as NATO “People in Serbia need European values and EU as a a EU as and values European need Serbia in “People in a normal manner. If we don’t do this, we willwe be this, do don’twe If manner. normal a in unfinished country, unable to cooperate with Moscow with to cooperate unable country, unfinished Hungarians, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians and Ruthenia and Romanians Slovaks, Croats, Hungarians, country in which the creator of wealth will be the the will be creator of wealth the which in country freedom - freedom to love, freedom in religion and and religion in freedom love, to freedom - freedom country of people who live in it, not the country o country the it, not in live who people of country “Serbian society is too divided in the wrong way. W way. wrong the in divided istoo society “Serbian this discrimination! Men and women must have equal equal have must women and Men discrimination! this achieve these values. It is necessary to establish establish to isnecessary It values. these achieve our ancestors, but by our idea of Serbia in thefut in Serbia of idea by our but ancestors, our “Every person in this country, and they are Serbs, Serbs, are they and country, this in person “Every "Our policy strategies are not determined by the op the by determined not are strategies policy "Our Serbian or Bulgarian. Serbia must be a different co different a be must Serbia Bulgarian. or Serbian Bosnians, Vlachs - all the people in this country, country, this in people the - all Vlachs Bosnians, “Did all around us join NATO? Well, then we have to have we Well, then NATO? join us around all “Did 34 can celebrate two different Easters or say "goodbye say Easters or different two celebrate can do we live? And have you ever heard that human righ human that ever you heard have And live? we do modernization of Serbia. Without it, Serbia will re Serbia it, Without Serbia. of modernization communities that I have mentioned, are safe within within safe are mentioned, have I that communities “European integration is the only rational way for for way rational isthe only integration “European “Our state should raise a flag that will preserve e will preserve that flag a raise should state “Our

Checks and Bulgarians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Checks the same workplace if they have the same degree.” degree.” same the have they if workplace same the “Any woman in the country today has 8.5% lower has 8.5% today country the in woman “Any activists mentioned that topic? No! I will abolish will abolish I No! topic? that mentioned activists wage than men! So is it fair? In which century century which In isfair? it So men! than wage social justice and economic development.” development.” economic and justice social manner of policy guiding” guiding” policy of manner freedom to be different” different” be to freedom and Washington.” Washington.” and black hole.” hole.” black others” others”

a society of of society a f Serbs and Serbs f fact that we that fact an isolated isolated an ure that is that ure all ethnic ethnic all language, language, Romani, Romani, e want a a want e ith others others ith untry, a a untry, inion of of inion main main , Beijing Beijing , very very mean mean to pay in pay our our " in in " the the ns and and ns join join ts CEU eTD Collection Example Code values Radical Theme discursive 2 – The parties radical contentsTable of National unityNational church orthodox Serbian Anti-past Family dedicated to those who will be born. Therefore, our Therefore, born. will be who to those dedicated citizens at every border crossing are hiding the the na hiding are crossing border every at citizens Europe, different from the rest of the world? Serbi world? the restof the from different Europe, reconciliation, we defy to hatred and danger and we and danger and hatred to defy we reconciliation, "How would it seem that Serbia is again isolated fr isolated isagain Serbia that seem it would "How facing life and future, creating bridges, landing a landing bridges, creating future, and life facing dedicated to life. We are not traditionalists, we h we traditionalists, Wenot to life. are dedicated 35 passport of origin? How would that Serbia look like look Serbia that would How origin? of passport

"We need to clearly tell them we do not want them them want not them do wetell clearly to need "We for a president! They want to steal Vojvodina, just steal Vojvodina, to want They president! a for Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Vojvodina. of Province Autonomous the of Statute only the European Union, but also over the whole whole the over also but Union, European the only separatism! But they are not the only separatists, separatists, theonly not are they But separatism! not a statistical error, that the family is the pil isthe family the that error, statistical a not religion, honesty and our cross. Because we love love we Because cross. and our honesty religion, region as well - a mufti of Novi Pazar is running isrunning Novi Pazar of mufti a well- as region We need to save Serbia, we have to be unified. If If unified. be to have we Serbia, save to Weneed enforce. We want to be clear that the ''family'' is ''family'' the that clear be to We want enforce. and all those who voted to give approval for the for the approval give to voted who those all and Because we know God and His saints, and their their His and and saints, God know we Because God will help us, said Patriarch Pavle. And the the And Pavle. Patriarch said us, will help God there is Bajatovic as well. They are separatists, separatists, are They well. as isBajatovic there role in our history. Because we did not sell our our sellnot did we Because history. our in role family law that regime of Boris Tadic wants to to wants Tadic Boris of regime that law family Metohija, because they want to take the Raska Raska the take to want they because Metohija, “Family comes first! We do not agree to anti- to agree not Wedo first! comes “Family family values, and we will fight for it until the the until it for willwe fight and values, family collapse. We do not give up on the family and and family the on up give not We do collapse. Mother Serbia, and we are putting it over not not over it putting are we and Serbia, Mother watch videos of Pantic and Canak, it is pure isitpure Canak, and Pantic of videos watch of Serbian society and the pole that will not will not that the pole and society Serbian of prayer of St. George will be with us. Why? Why? us. with will be George St. of prayer (EU) because they took us of Kosovo and and of Kosovo us took they because (EU) we are united then we can solve all our our all solve can we then united are we give up." up." give problems." problems." world. world. end.” end.” ave been been ave me of the of me hand to to hand a, whose whose a, policy is policy om the the om never never ?” lar lar

CEU eTD Collection backward Looking Anti-Europe History History Anti-NATO Anti-EU Anti-imperialism prideNational Tradition Tradition 36

"We must defend our own! First, the pride and the and First,pride the own! our defend must "We “Europe is a comfortable grave for small nations, nations, small for grave comfortable isa “Europe convinced that every Serb admires these immortal admires immortal Serb these every that convinced “Šutanovac is one of the biggest NATO lobbyists, thebiggest lobbyists, of NATO isone “Šutanovac Princip, whose name speaks for itself. We have a a Weforhave itself. speaks name whose Princip, captain is about to leave, and we are sweaty and and sweaty and are weleave, to isabout captain have kidnapped Kosovo and Metohija from you? you? from and Metohija Kosovo kidnapped have Romania, Hungary... "Titanic" sinks heavily, the heavily, sinks Hungary... "Titanic" Romania, modern history, together with Portugal, Ireland, Ireland, Portugal, with together history, modern progress of "Kosovo". What does Serbia have to have Serbia doesWhat "Kosovo". of progress recession with the highest unemployment rate in in rate unemployment highest the with recession reports about Serbia and a special report on the the on report special a and Serbia about reports do within the EU, which tells us to our face - we face our tells to which us EU, the within do Faithful people! Vojislav Seselj, who is ready to to isready Seselj,who Vojislav people! Faithful “Serbia should be East to the West, and West to Westto and the West, to beEast should “Serbia "Kosovo". Every six months they make progress progress make they months six Every "Kosovo". dignity. Who can restore our pride and dignity? dignity? and pride our restore can Who dignity. Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Soviet, and all all and Soviet, and Austro-Hungarian Ottoman, century of the great accomplishment of Gavrilo Gavrilo of accomplishment great the of century celebration of 100 years of entering the famous famous the entering of years 100 of celebration Slovenia and Croatia. We will soon celebrate a celebrate Wesoon will Croatia. and Slovenia "The EU cannot we be our friend, because they they because friend, our be we cannot EU "The those before them. Athens is on fire, Spain is in isin Spain fire, ison Athens them. before those extraordinary and the Serbian name is great.” isgreat.” name theSerbian and extraordinary nineteenth century, or as a neutral state as the the as state neutral a as or century, nineteenth confessional imperial dissolution models and and models dissolution imperial confessional tradition ,like a neutral state that was in the the in was that state a neutral ,like tradition “Serbs are preparing for 28 for preparing are “Serbs the East, relying on the ancestors, relying on on relying the ancestors, on relying East, the established the ICTY in order not to see who who see to not order ICTYin the established and Dveri are against membership of Serbia Serbia of membership against are Dveri and Serbian army in Kosovo and Metohija. I am am I Metohija. and Kosovo in army Serbian countries of the EU recognized the terrorist the recognized EU the of countries sacrifice his life for the interests of Serbia." Serbia." of interests the for life his sacrifice Middle Ages, as well as modern state in the the in state modern wellas as Ages, Middle participated in the bombing of our country, country, of our the bombing in participated agitated paddle to him in order to board.” board.” to in order to him paddle agitated heroes, and that not a single Serb admires admires Serb single a not that and heroes, really dismantled Yugoslavia and then 22 then and Yugoslavia dismantled really empires fell apart in the blood and ashes. ashes. and blood the in apart fell empires part of Yugoslavia in twentieth century”. century”. in twentieth Yugoslavia of part because as all multi-national and multi- and multi-national all as because lot to be proud of, Serbian people are are people of,Serbian proud be to lot in this criminal military alliance.” alliance.” military criminal this in th of October, the the October, of CEU eTD Collection TweetsFacebook posts of posts radical discursive TwFigureProportion of parties Facebook and on 1 – presentedis a In discursive onFacebook Figureand posts the Figure of 3 amount 1 Radical Radical discourse Overall Dveri SNS DSS SRS RP

265/75 36/4 61/19 36/13 32/17 100/2

overall/discursive Facebook 37

630/60 94/6 38/7 17/7. 129/36 352/4

overall/discursive nd Twitter. nd Twitter. Twitter itter

CEU eTD Collection posts). posts). Tweets Facebook posts the least discursive contents from all parties within radical within parties all from contents discursive least the Se while posts), of number total of (53.12% Party Radical Serbian areby for was disc that The their in discourse. typical dominant far party posti were parties radical that contents all of 28.30% Facebook, On parties discursive progrewere within contents than posting overall more part that confirmed is it results, the from seen be can it As of posts progressive discursive FigureProportionFaceb of 2 – parties on Progressive discourse Overall URS LDP SPS DS DS

366/37 59/4 105/5 114/16 88/12

38

overall/discursive Facebook discourse (only 2% of total number of of number total of 2% (only discourse ies that represent radical discourse discourse radical represent that ies

1056/44 148/4 162/6 235/14 511/20 rbian Progressive Party posted Party Progressive rbian ng are related to themes that that themes to related are ng ssive discourse. discourse. ssive ursive-content posting is ursive-content posting is ook overall/discursive Twitter

CEU eTD Collection progressive discourse, but the percentage of discursive contents was contents discursive of percentage the but discourse, progressive oiia pris te eut a smwa epce. Webmas expected. somewhat was result the parties, political Democratic Party and Liberal Democratic Party. The webmas The w Party. Democratic Liberal contents, and Party ideologicalDemocratic post not do usually they that claiming mostly that answers interview the with results these compare we If had the lowest ofpercentage (only discursive 2.7%). tweets whil 235), of out (14 Party Democratic Liberal had content discursive discursive of 4.16% had overall discourse progressive of Parties was (41.17% ofnumber discursive) tweets number of of entire discursive tweets Democratic tweets), of number entire of (27.9% Party Radical chan has posting discursive in leader the but 1.13%), (only contents with party the remained Party Progressive Serbian tweets. whi tweets, discursive 60 sum in posted parties discourse Radical Facebook. p than contents discursive more posting generally were discourse unc remained It different. somewhat are results the Twitter, On 4.76% number.) of post total Social within present is amount lowest the while posts), of number Democra has discourse this within posts discursive of amount highest chara becan posts of number total the of 10.10% – radicaldiscourse less significantly posted discourse progressive of Parties 39

discursive contents than parties within within parties than contents discursive the lowest amount of discursive discursive of amount lowest the ter of Democratic Party said that that said Party Democratic of ter Party of Serbia preceded with the with preceded Serbia of Party hanged that parties within radical within parties that hanged es f rgesv pris were parties progressive of ters gt rm h wbatr of webmasters the from got I arties that are coming from the the from coming are that arties ch is 9.52% of total number of of number total of 9.52% is ch tweets. The largest number of of number largest The tweets. cterized as “discursive”. The “discursive”. as cterized significantly lower than on on than lower significantly e United Regions of Serbia Serbia of Regions United e tic Party (13.63% of total total of (13.63% Party tic ist Party of Serbia (only (only Serbia of Party ist ged – instead of Serbian Serbian of instead – ged t te xeto of exception the ith . . CEU eTD Collection oiis s rae b te at ogn i acrac wt the with accordance in organs party the by created is politics the of words the In problems. current to solutions concrete promote promote “socialdemocratic values”. It was also the case wit case the also was It values”. “socialdemocratic promote main features of social networks – group featuresmain of – social targeting. networks politic whether is investigate to wanted I that aspect Another 7.2.Targeting improve help of (Nedeljkovic et to lives el. citizens.” all will 2012) imple the enable thus and Party Radical Serbian choose can they to politics our introducing for mean a be to needed only are networks led dvlpd porm n attds o wih e are we which for attitudes and program a developed already tha magazine “Standard” for recently stated SRS, of member the R Vjerica Also, party. the of manifesto the and program the p promote to importance greatof is it Partysaid, Reformist Accor Party. Radical Serbian and Serbia of Party Democratic parti important most three of webmasters the reach to achieve wit Unfortunately, things.” realistic and achievable concrete, discursive spreading not are they Serbia, of Party Socialist ntd ein o Sri bt si ta ter ol s o t prom to not is goal their that said both Serbia of Regions United S of webmasters the hand, other the On way. possible best the in pr to created are messages on-line their that webmasternoted their Facebook and Twitter messages have an ideological dimens ideological an have messages Twitter and Facebook their

40

arty discourse on-line, since it reflects reflects it since on-line, discoursearty contents because they “advocate for “advocate they because contents adeta, the member of Parliament and and Parliament of member the adeta, esent their policy and their ideology ideology their and policy their esent al parties extensively use one of the of one use extensively parties al h Liberal Democratic Party, whose whose Party, Democratic Liberal h hin radical discourse I did not not did I discourse radical hin ding to what the webmaster of of webmaster the what to ding s Srin rgesv Party, Progressive Serbian – es consistently fighting for. Party Party for. fighting consistently mentation of our program that that program our of mentation ion since their main goal is to to is goal main their since ion t “Serbian Radical Party has has Party Radical “Serbian t Statute of the party. Social Social party. the of Statute cait at o Sri and Serbia of Party ocialist member of on-line team of of team on-line of member people in the right way, so so way, right the in people ote party-ideology, but to to but party-ideology, ote CEU eTD Collection ate sol b te ot treig I i wdl rcgie t recognized widely is It targeting. youth the be should parties H2: All parties will post the post amountof youngcontents significant will H2: that p parties All line campaigningline activities. tr will Serbia in parties political taking, are they that prom are they discourse the of spite in that, argue will I Thus, undisputedyoungs firstly that posted contents still will is 2007), reach it the pe young of engagement political of forms different and values new democracies modern whether about debate ongoing an still is there poli in but time, free their in only not media social and Internet “digit of generation The 2008) networks.(Bennet, social of users frequent t Serbia, of system political in position party or discourse many by segregated be can interest of group different Although youngfor people. quantificat of results the presented are 4 Figure and 3 Figure In employment,school, scholarship, etc. first primar I in” interested are people “young that contents the By 41

y to reach young people through their on- their through people young reach to y he most logical targeting-strategy of all all of targeting-strategy logical most he oting or the place in party system system party in place the or oting criteria in accordance with party party with accordance in criteria ion of posts designed especially especially designed posts of ion tical purpose as well. Although Although well. as purpose tical hat young people are the most most the are people young hat ily cluster the posts related to to related posts the cluster ily are successful in coping with with coping in successful are ople (Mesch and Coleman, Coleman, and (Mesch ople eople are interested in. are interestedeople in. ters. ters. al natives” is using using is natives” al CEU eTD Collection Figure 4 – Progressive discourse parties and posts peopl discourse parties dedicated and toFigure young Progressive 4 – Facebook Tweets posts wes hr te hae “on” “ot” shlr” “tdns a onl “students” dedicated discourse radical “scholars”, of parties Facebook, “youth” On occurring. “young”, phrases the where tweets c was I – analysis quantitative simple conduct to and case this in aba to decided I why is That posts. two or one than more fit can form to separatwas impossible more errorof or and statistical less it y for intended posts of percentage The analysis. content qualitative to nothing almost was there that admit to devastating quite is It Facebook Tweets posts Figure 3 – Radical discourse parties and posts dedicated to young people people dedicated to posts young Figure discoursepartiesRadical and 3 –

42

ndon qualitative content analysis content qualitative ndon analyze, at least by the use of of use the by least at analyze, oung people was at the level level the at was people oung utn Fcbo pss and posts Facebook ounting I and codes e which in topics 11% f vrl ot to posts overall of 1.13% y nd “scholarship” are are “scholarship” nd e

CEU eTD Collection oiia cmags al ate ae etn 01 o national of 0.1% getting are parties all campaigns, political ate ad ate ta d nt ae nuh upr t etr h parl the enter to support enough have not do that parties and parties won the seats in the parliament, proportionally with the number the with proportionally parliament, the in seats the won The electorallists. all to portions equal in allocated further litics_Serbian.pdf http://www.ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Repo 22 Republic of activities political of financing of Law the to political advertizing to comes it when that especially activity, expensive known well is it Namely, campaigns. traditional social recognize will parties underresourced that assume will lack the with parties for chance perfect a is it costs, the is networks social of advantages main the of one Since campaign. more be will parties which investigate to wanted I Finally, 7.3.Motivation canTherefore, be rejected. hypothesis my all of Twitter. 3.35% Facebook on – people young to “dedicated” more slightly Part 1.42%. – Twitter on more bit little a just and people young mandates. mandates. parties the than web-campaign the conducting in interested more parlia the enter did that parties the and parliament the enter I Hence, activities. campaigning their for resources limited Serbian Law on financing of political activities, activities, political of financing on Law Serbian (accessed on May 8 May on (accessed

th 2012) 2012) available at web-address web-address at available rts/2011/The%20Serbian%20Law%20on%20Financing%20Po 43

of resources to be heard. (Chadwick, 2006) I 2006) (Chadwick, heard. be to resources of of Serbia, for the need of financing of of financing of need the for Serbia, of rest of funds goes to those parties that that parties those to goes funds of rest ment, but won les then 20 seats, were seats, 20 then les won but ment, devoted in carrying out the on-line on-line the out carrying in devoted trough traditional media. According media. traditional trough will argue that parties that did not not did that parties that argue will networks as a substitute for costly costly for substitute a as networks ugt 2% f hs fns are funds these of 20% budget. ies of progressive discourse were were discourse progressive of ies of mandates. of who won a large number of of number large a won who apinn i extremely is campaigning iament are getting very very getting are iament reduction of campaign campaign of reduction ot ad .8 on 2.08% and posts 22 Therefore, small Therefore, CEU eTD Collection parliament ot, hc i apoiaey 2 ot pr at. n h ohr hand, other the On party. per posts 82 approximately is which posts, support. support. more post overall will support moderate and small with Parties H3:

lcoa lss ih mdrt spot ae h oe wo o le won who ones the are support” “moderate with lists Serbian electoral and Dveri Party, Reformist - 5% of threshold electoral part included I support” “small with parties of group the In 23 bigg Facebook, On support. moderate and small with lists electoral Face on both active more were lists electoral and parties Big Twitter average » 260 posts/party Facebook average » 82 posts/party and big overall 3 – The numberFacebook small and of Table Twitter posts pa of and parties small F of quantification of results the presented are 3 Table the In

BIG PARTIESBIG The proportion of votes that they won is lessthen won they that votes of Theproportion Overall SNS DSS SPS DS DS 23 – United Regions of Serbia and Turnover. of – United Regions Serbia and Turnover.

329 105 100 FB 36 88

Twitter Twitter average » 104 posts/party 1042 162 352 511 17 7% 7%

44

Facebook average » 60 posts/party PARTIES SMALL Overall DVERI URS LDP SRS RP ies that did not manage to pass the the pass to manage not did that ies book and Twitter than parties and parties than Twitter and book acebook and Twitter posts of big big of posts Twitter and acebook

er parties had all together 329 together all had parties er Radical Party. Parties and and Parties Party. Radical s hn 0 et i the in seats 20 than ss hn ate wt big with parties than smaller parties had all all had parties smaller 302 114 FB 36 61 32 59

rties rties Twitter 623 129 235 148 94 17

CEU eTD Collection posted tweets. The least active on Twitter were Democratic were Twitter on active least The tweets. posted party considered it important to develop the on-line campaign, b campaign, on-line the develop to important it considered party posts. posts. really ensure votes. The similar opinion had a webmaster of Re of webmaster a had opinion similar The votes. ensure really on- that argued He necessary. was it than communication of kind this sometim party his opinion, his on that, stated Twitter, and Facebook although Serbia, of Party Socialist of team on-line of members time. on community network social their create to started they e the before even importance its recognized they that and networks acc a paid always Twitter had party his and that stated Party Facebook Democratic official of Administrator communication. of empha were more posting were that parties of webmasters The imp the on views different quite had parties of webmasters The 17 posted tweets. precedin was Party Democratic Liberal parties, smaller Democratic was Twitter on party active most the Indubitably, tweets 104 and parties big for party per tweets 260 average, (on 523 tweets more times two almost had parties big Twitter, On least active were Serbian Radical party with 32 posts and D and posts 32 with party Radical Serbian were active least part Socialistic and posts 114 with Party Democratic Liberal p active Most average. on party per posts 60 but posts, 302 together 45

g in the number of tweets, with 235 235 with tweets, of number the in g tnin o omncto o social on communication to ttention Party of Serbia and Dveri, both with with both Dveri, and Serbia of Party than small ones – 1042 compared to to compared 1042 – ones small than y of Serbia with 105 posts, while the while posts, 105 with Serbia ofy emocratic Party of Serbia with 36 with Serbia of Party emocratic sizing the importance of this way way this of importance the sizing his party was very active on both on active very was party his at wt 51 wes Ot of Out tweets. 511 with Party ortance of on-line campaigning. campaigning. on-line of ortance ut that they also considered that that considered also they that ut formist party, who said that his his that said who party, formist On the other hand, one of the the of one hand, other the On lections, and that therefore therefore that and lections, per party for small ones). ones). small for party per es paid more attention on attention more paid es arties on Facebook were were Facebook on arties line campaigning cannot campaigning line ut f Liberal of ount CEU eTD Collection According my can rejected. the hypothesis results, to be on-line followers the life. engage real ready in to is thi he that stated he addition, In importance. crucial of not was it 46

nks that only small number of of number small only that nks CEU eTD Collection promote otherwise. The webmaster of Dveri said that Serbian that said Dveri of webmaster The otherwise. promote ups o dsore rmto i vsbe n h rsls f h conte the of results the in visible is promotion discourse of purpose mechanisms on social networks and decided to use it in promoting the promoting in it use to decided and networks social on mechanisms t recognized parties certain that seems it else, nothing If “strategies”wonder campaigning speak online even in can i about whether we devastati the to led probably conducting, campaign on-line of knowledge skepticis That action”. of “people truly not are who persons the a described easily be can networks social on time much too spend who “ as itself networks social of form the characterized Dveri so broader to comes it when also but campaigns, political in only e to willing are few Very operations. his of range ultimate mouse the clicking by do can you What passive. quite is voter “online of webmaster a of words the In networks. social of outside engage Twitter and fans Facebook of 20% – 5 only that approximation their need. actually they that engagement offline for guarantee a not that think them of Many general. in networks social trough communication stil they that webmasters with interviews the from visible insufficiently and new relatively this to related skepticism that for Reasons campaign. the in beneficial be can that networks r to failed Serbia in parties political that notable is It Discussion 8. attitude includes the media as well.” The tendency of radical par radical of tendency The well.” as media the includes attitude currentp against “cruciallybecause theywere promotion their 47

ecognize important many aspects of social of aspects many important ecognize e osblt o wae gatekeeping weaker of possibility he known way of communication. It is is It communication. of way known ngage offline. This is a problem not not problem a is This offline. ngage very strange”. He stated that people people that stated He strange”. very d nt eiv i te eeis of benefits the in believe not do l olitical situation in Serbia, and thatand Serbia,in situation olitical media were mostly “closed” for “closed” mostly were media ties to use social networks in the in networks social use to ties hs tiue s lovsbe in visible also is attitude This , lnsd wt insufficient with alongside m, cial actions." A webmaster of webmaster A actions." cial followers would be ready to to ready be would followers Liberal Democratic Party, Party, Democratic Liberal oty i i te general the in lie mostly s “asocial” and marked as marked and “asocial” s or keyboard - this is the the is this - keyboard or ng results that makes us us makes that results ng contents they could not not could they contents nt analysis as well. well. as analysis nt online engagement is is engagement online n Serbia. n Serbia. CEU eTD Collection place, and therefore it is not too unforeseen that they are not em not are they that unforeseen too not is it therefore and place, people are considered to be “disaffected citizens” or “cultura or citizens” “disaffected be to considered are people promote their party discourse on Facebook than on Twitter. One possib One Twitter. on than Facebook on discourse party their promote notice radical and to that both important Nonetheless, par progressive is it on pol a a pcfc agt ru, e hud osdr s consider should we group, target specific a as people young Ifconcentrate we o media. of aspect social veryutilizing this important Se in parties political targeting, to comes it when However, emphasis the on continuing their with policy. and Serbia” in change democratic of “engine the t path” “European of promotion on playing was Party Democratic Progressive Serbian from coming is that threat big the and loss f explanation Plausible messages. discursive of amount large quite P Democratic – opponents main their hand, other the On campaign. their a and popularity them brought what was discourse radical the from s previous their from away move to struggle their and reorientation” tha presume to reasonable probably is It Party. Progressive conte discursive of amount low very a is discourse-promoting of domain especi One content. informative simple example, for than, complex t presenting for suitable more is Facebook of platform The 24 on Facebook, we will see complete link and the cove the and link complete see we will Facebook, on twe the of body the in Twitter, on video YouTube to enti the and 140) (only tweet one fit can that characters of number For example, posting YouTube video on Facebook and Facebook on video YouTube posting example, For

et will be shown only the short version of the link the of version short the only shown willet be r picture of the video that we want to post. post. to we want that video the of picture r on Twitter looks completely different. If we post Ifwe post different. completely Twitter looks on 48

rbia were completely unsuccessful in in unsuccessful completely were rbia t this happened due to their “image their to due happened this t he discursive material that is more more is that material discursive he lly displaced” (Loader, 2007), that that 2007), (Loader, displaced” lly phasizing discursive messages in in messages discursive phasizing everal reasons for that. Young Young that. for reasons everal at a ter an opponent. main their as Party re visual solution of Twitter. of solution visual re hat they began to develop as develop to began they hat or that is the fear of election of fear the is that or ally interesting result in the in result interesting ally agr upr i te first the in support larger n their failure to target the target to failure n their tandpoints. Moving away away Moving tandpoints. le reason is the limited limited the is reason le ties were more likely to wereties more to likely on the importance of of importance the on nt posted by Serbian Serbian by posted nt arty – were posting posting were – arty . If we do it it Ifwe . do the link link the 24

CEU eTD Collection parties. They will express they interest in politics in a in politics in interest they express will They parties. 25 that anything do or party political a join vote, to out go rarely old, in engaged politically not usually are youngsters that showing new the with up cope to failure its and democracies modern about Mes world. digital of out culture political “old” in place their pol traditional in interested not crucially are they that means ht nufcet teto ws ie t ti ise I i as r also is webmastersgroupat target al clearly formed have said they that do not It issue. this to given was attention insufficient that cont and form language, of terms in like look will people young the of is it that noted Party Democratic Liberal of webmaster creating are they when especially people, young to attention s webmasters some Although for. aim parties traditional what not (people who are likely to vote for liberal civic pa civic liberal for vote to likely are who (people lo to a cmuiain eas i cn aiy e perceive be easily can it because communication way two allow of pattern organizational that possible quite is It communication. most and traditional, more are discourse radical within Parties be that ones arethe active most the parties, small among that, pro the at discourse look we If parties. political party of habits communicational Serbian of emer answer specificities possible The one explanation. extensively, more networks social use not if results, its and analysis the of part last the to Related from the district of Nis”. Nis”. of district fromthe Only Liberal Democratic Party stated that they wer they that stated Party Democratic Liberal Only

rties) and Reformist Party said that their target g target their that said Party Reformist and rties) e targeting people with “similar political beliefs political “similar with people etargeting 49

different way, and that “different way” is is way” “different that and way, different we ask a question why small parties do do parties small why question a ask we great importance how the messages for for messages the how importancegreat messages online (for example, the the example, (for online messages long to progressive party discourse. discourse. party progressive to long itics and that they can hardly find hardly can they that and itics is in interest of traditional political traditional of interest in is ch’s and Coleman’s (2007) article article (2007) Coleman’s and ch’s results again, we will clearly see see clearly will we again, results radical parties simply does not not does simply parties radical te srne ht lot all almost that strange ather d as an organizational threat. threat. organizational an as d iey es sd o two-way to used less likely ent), the results clearly show show clearly results the ent), al srnl sae the shape strongly bably tated that they are paying paying are they that tated traditional way. They will will They way. traditional values of young people is is people young of values l. 25

ges as a possible possible a as ges roup is “people is “people roup as ours” ours” as CEU eTD Collection people whose job was to moderate and update their official F official their update and moderate to was job whose people parties” that are coming from the progressive discourse – Li – discourse progressive the from coming are that parties” large especially ones, of the parties, purposes. political Most pl cnosi ad ht t a hpeig ny n xrm case extreme in only happening was it that and censorship apply cla them of many Also, why. and when published, be will what responsibilities had of equal thethey members team all stating, were said them of Most of. charge in were they what doing in freedom claim were parties discourse progressive from webmasters soci of advantages the use to them allow not does parties radical suspicion reasonable a is there Therefore, Serbia. of Regions of lack the social for reason on main work the is not This does communication. simply in do, equality to need they everything for charge political which in structure bureaucratic and "Over-oligarchic occurredthat more in and developed environments. more technology-shaped top exp have not still parties Serbia in Therefore, that possible is it (from direction one in place takes organizations of type this Natur responsibilities. and tasks place, their knows everyone where with centralized, usually are discourse radical within Parties comparison with other three “large parties”, and at the same same the at and parties”, “large three other with comparison i Serbia of Party Democratic “larger”, as characterized importance decisive of not was party the of size the However, (Nedeljkovical. 2012) et likel more are networks social this, of Because quickly. react and aut sufficient no is there everything, of charge in is boss one im their and users the of rest the by supported further be can and question uncomfortable very a raise can anyone where risk of 50

was much less active on social networks in in networks social on active less much was ing that they had really high degree of degree high really had they that ing just do not want to get into that kind kind get that into to want donot just beral Democratic Party and United United and Party Democratic beral onomous persons that can respond respond can that persons onomous mediate reaction. In parties where where parties In reaction. mediate erienced the organizational changeorganizational erienced the la srcue n rln system ruling and structure clear acebook and Twitter account. As As account. Twitter and acebook pris r akn hi head-in- their asking are parties that the organizational pattern of of pattern organizational the that iels atv ta w “small two than active less time imed that they were reluctant to to reluctant were they that imed y to be a risk than opportunity." than risk a be y to that they had an entire team of of team entire an had they that insist on a response. That act act That response. a on insist al networks. In addition, all all addition, In networks. al and equal freedom to decide decide freedomand to equal n this case. Out of parties parties of Out case. this n ally, the communication in in communication the ally, s, such as the posting of of posting the as such s, tutrs o h bottom). the to structures social networks usage for for usage networks social ewrs ht allow that networks CEU eTD Collection media. opened social usage for of the dis progressive within parties that suspect can we analysis, Neverthel easily. so empirically checked be cannot it since shoul claim this However, content. offensive and vulgar explicitly 51

s, codn t te eut o the of results the to according ess, ore r ognztoal more organizationally are course d not be taken for granted granted for taken be not d CEU eTD Collection perspective are “net-optimists”, such as Castells, who arg who Castells, as such “net-optimists”, are perspective Interne of potentials mobilizing to comes it when pessimists” oe cnuig bt n h ohr ad h ms efcet om f pre-e of form efficient most the hand other the on but consuming, money campai door-to-door traditional for replacement perfect the are suggestions comments, their with process political the influence voice their that impression strong very a have networks social citize Those process. political in creating is networks social t participation direct of illusion the of power the underestimated Political communication. way two of possibility the and targeting soci of dimensions useful and important especially to comes it when ex valid the be cannot attitude this However, media. social towards m Serbia in parties that seems It 2000). (Castells, society s entire redesigned therefore and organization social of form a as hi sr htaete anosalsi hi mobilizat their in obstacles main the are that users their a networks social of character non-hierarchical about observations (2010) Gladwell Malcom Morozov, with Alongside reality. offline the in tr to capable not are networks social other and Facebook Twitter, of possibility the on view of point critical quite but relevant, Delusion” Net “The book his in Morozov, Evgeniy pessimists”, “net t h frt place. first the at pro should we networks, social on strategies successful and detailed polit key of failure the for reasons possible find to try we If Conclusion9.

hr i sil n non dbt bten ocle “e optim “net so-called between debate ongoing an still is There 52

ion potential. On the other side of the of side other the On potential. ion ued that social media revived network network revived media social that ued ostly have a “net pessimistic” attitude attitude pessimistic” “net a have ostly ns who are participating actively on on actively participating are who ns t and social networks. One of the of One networks. social and t cl ate i Sri t develop to Serbia in parties ical gning that is extremely time and and time extremely is that gning “net-revolution”. He argued that that argued He “net-revolution”. and judgments. Social networks networks Social judgments. and hat two way communication on on communication way two hat uly force the social engagement engagement social the force uly bably look back in the theory theory the in back look bably cuse for their total ignorance total their for cuse is heard and that they can can they that and heard is nd “weak bounds” between between bounds” “weak nd ate i Sri definitely Serbia in parties ocial structure of modern modern of structure ocial al media, such as direct direct as such media, al made some interesting some made (2012) presented one one presented (2012) lectoral promoting. promoting. lectoral ss ad “net and ists” CEU eTD Collection become more aware of the advantages that social networks are networks social that advantages the of aware more become process in this paper is important so the parties can be mor be can parties the so important is paper this in process presumed be can it nonexistent, almost were parties political networks communication via more social seriously. f rehearsal” “dress a as elections these take should Serbia in will results the that expected was it online, campaigns their first the were elections parliamentary these since Overall, communication. – if it turns out that the online campaigning actually can brin can actually campaigning online the that out turns it if – t effects of question the However, devastating. quite be also would thi In effects. campaigning online of investigation the be would step the field, this in research further for suggestions to comes it When f to is Serbia in communication more the real seriously and develop try nex to by to strategies parties political for task the Therefore, 53

e motivated to develop their strategies strategies their develop to motivated e not be satisfactory. However, parties parties However, satisfactory. be not ones in which parties were leading leading were parties which in ones g them votes, the parties will finally will parties the votes, them g bringing in the world of political political of world the in bringing that the effects of campaigning campaigning of effects the that inally take this new way of of way new this take inally r h nx oe ad ae the take and ones next the or s case when the strategies of of strategies the when case s next important and logical and important next hat I did not have time to to time have not did I hat t elections.t CEU eTD Collection Appendix1 The interview – guide Section 2 Section Section 1 Section Appendices10. 1. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

pages you update? Are they aware of the importance of this typ this of importance the of aware they Are update? you pages o iprat s h pooin hog sca ntok t te politica the to networks social through promotion the is important How and update the pages? How much freedom do you How haveand update it? much in freedom do the pages? publi to what guidelines the you giving is Who superior? is Who What is youryou is How do What much time daily workload? spend it? doing Do you work alone or within ayou team? Do within alone work or Are youyouyouAre that the arejob a paid for volunteer? door marketing activities? marketingactivities? party engagedthe bywas largermarketing-companythat y are expert, communication a are you If profession? your is what communications, of field the to related professionally you Are organization? member a you Are you? hired that party the of member a you Are when will yougivenwhen approximately will job? dothe p given the on you are when Since networks? social on pages edit you / movement / party the which for title, surname, and name Full 54

in purpose of implementation of implementation of purpose in marketing or PR? If not, not, If PR? or marketing political organization do organization political e of communication and communication of e sh and how to moderate to how and sh ou an employee of a of employee an ou of another political political another of osition and until and osition l party whose whose party l CEU eTD Collection Section 4 Section Section 3 Section 1. 4. 2. 3. 2. 1. 3. 2.

action? Are your Are action? engagement or intended awake simply messages to social goal primary your Is post? usually you messages of kind What networks resources, (finance, creativity human ...?) politic in important most the as highlight you would factors What Are your messages ideological? yourWhyareAre are not? ideological? / messages important is the general is important of the moderator? role dissemi the facilitate platforms networking social many How What are the main disadvantages? What can What go areWhat wrong? the disadvantages? main the campaign? i the in networks social of advantage main the youropinion, in is, What s h pry etn aie sfiin aon o fns rm its from funds you If so? is campaign? this that why not, do think of amount sufficient a aside setting party the Is moderate? or party the to activists / members / voters new bring can that think you Do parties? the of expectations main the are What neato wt te oes D yu hn ta sfiin importa sufficient that networks? communicating think via social you Do voters? the with interaction 55

nation of information? How information? of nation the expectations are more more are expectations the to inform or to call for for call to or inform to al advertising on social social on advertising al social networking sites sites networking social ugt o on-line for budget mplementation of mplementation nce is given to to given is nce to inform?to CEU eTD Collection Section 5 Section 1. 3. 8. 2. 4. 7. 4. 6. 5. 3.

private messages, etc..)? How often do you answer their questions / / questions their answer you do often How etc..)? messages, private purpose of it? purpose of it? What is your target audience? Why? Do youyouryou Do Why? or is it What audience? a targetprefer catch have expectations? What can go wrong and contrary to expectations? How can hap often What expectations? this goexpectations? and contrary wrong to feed their Does followers? your from get you feedback of kind What media? If media? why? what type and so, broadcas not do you that networks social through contents some post you Do that you identified? Inyou that way? what identified? post youare message the of format and content the customize you Do that campaigns on social networks have an effect and why? why? networks campaignsthat and an have onsocial effect target the on placed content the of effect the assess you would How Why?negative campaign? e you Do often? How messages? your in competition the mention you Do Do you encourage public debate on your pages? Do youyouryou Do Do debate encourage and open discussions on polls public pages? criticisms? (a followers your with "personal" be to tend you degree what To To what degree you resort to censorship? Inyou censorship? to To what cases? degree which resort o o ps snainlsi cnet? n ht iutos n hw ofte how and situations what In contents? sensationalistic post you Do 56

re you sending them them sending you re group? Do you think youthink Do group? ing to target groups target to ing ak ac your match back -all principle? principle? -all ? ht s the is What n? suggestions / / suggestions ver resort to to resort ver t via old old via t ? ? pens? pens? CEU eTD Collection youryou Thankand for patience! time you feelIfadd, freeanything doso. have to to 6. 5. 7.

(respect the new facilities, expanding existing ones, participate expanding ones, i (respect existing facilities, the new engage actually companions of percentage what speaking, Roughly likes, the number of followers, the number of comments ...?)? thelikes, number of comments the of number followers, informati of dissemination on-line of success the measure you do How this is possible? is this e what to and members and activists voters, new win to it influence so on campaigns that think you Do percent? what In networks? social engage to willing companions on-line are they think you do extent what To 57

n debates, etc.).? n debates, xtent you think that that think you xtent in social networks networks social in on (the number of of number (the on cial networks can networks cial outside of of outside CEU eTD Collection Appendix2 The – codesheetfor the qualitativeanal Non-discursive posts of Number forward Looking Example Europe Code values Progressive Theme discourse Anti-past Anti-past Pro-NATO Pro-EU Integration Diversity Equality Future Tolerance Freedom

58

ysis of ysis progressive CEU eTD Collection Appendix3 The – codesheetfor the qualitativeanal Non-discursive posts of Number backward Looking Example Anti-Europe Code values Radical Theme discourse History History Anti-NATO Anti-EU Anti-imperialism pride National unity National church orthodox Serbian Tradition Family

59

ysis of ysis radical CEU eTD Collection people Appendix4 The – codesheetfor content analysis of Non-young oriented oriented Non-young Scholarship Scholar School Student Youth Young Code 60

posts of Number

posts relatedto young CEU eTD Collection Appendix 5 – The list– The Facebook5 Twit and ofAppendix analyzed https://twitter.com/#!/sns_srbija https://twitter.com/#!/DveriSrpske https://twitter.com/#!/socijalisti https://twitter.com/#!/srpski_radikali https://twitter.com/#!/DSSvesti https://twitter.com/#!/regionisrbije https://twitter.com/#!/reformisti http://www.facebook.com/ujedinjeniregionisrbije http://www.facebook.com/demokratskastrankasrbije http://www.facebook.com/demokrate http://www.facebook.com/snssrbija http://www.facebook.com/SocijalistickaPartijaSrbije http://www.facebook.com/dverizazivotsrbije http://www.facebook.com/reformisti http://www.facebook.com/Liberalnodemokratskapartija http://www.facebook.com/srpski.radikali.zvanicnastr

61

SPS anica

ter pages ter CEU eTD Collection https://twitter.com/#!/demokrate https://twitter.com/#!/LDP

62

CEU eTD Collection Networked Politics, in in Politics, Networked Democracy Learning How Digital Media Digital How Learning Engage Can Youth Political CommunicationPolitical Bryman, 2008. Alan. 3 - Ch 4.Chicago University: Work, Press of Chicago alre, ee. 2009. Peter. Dahlgreen, Technologies 2006. Andrew. Chadwich, 29, 693-699Vol. No. 5: Society, Network the of Sociology a Toward 2000. Manuel. Castells, Age” Digital the in Citizenship “Changing 2008. Lance. W. Bemnnet, Routlege London: DieterLoader, and Rucht. Brianvan G. de Paul Nixon, Donk, D. a Strenghts Activism: Global “Communicating 2007. Lance. W. Bennet, References11. Shifting Nature of Political OrganizationPolitical of Nature Shifting 2009. Andrew. J. Flanagin, and Cynthia. Stohl, Bruce, Bimber, Brader, Ted. 2006. Brader, Ted. 2006. M A Engagement: Affect Use Internet Does 2009. Shelley. Boulliane, N. Howard. Routledge,Andrew York: & New 72-85 pp. Chadwick Philip . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press . Cambridge: , New York: Oxford university Press. Ch, 5,6,7. university Ch, Oxford Press. , New York: Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political A Political Appeals in Minds: Emotional How Hearts and for Campaigning Social ResearchSocial Methods Cyberprotest: New Media, Citizens and Social Movements Social and Citizens Media, New Cyberprotest: 193-211 ei Ad oiia Eggmn: iies Cmuiain and Communication Citizens, Engagement: Political And Media nent oiis Sae, iies n Nw Communication New and Citizens States, Politics: Internet . In . Routledge Handbook of Internet PoliticsInternet of Handbook Routledge . Oxford: Oxford University Oxford Press . Oxford: 63

, LanceBennet.edited MIT by W. press Technological Change and the the and Change Technological Contemporary SociologyContemporary eta Analysis of Research. of Analysis eta in in nd Vulnerabilities of of Vulnerabilities nd ii Lf Online: Life Civic edited by Wim Wim by edited , edited by by edited , ds ,

CEU eTD Collection Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain? Net Internet: the and Parties Political New MediaNew People Media and New People Media and New Yorker B Not Will Revolution The Why – Change Small 2010. Malcolm. Gladwell, Does the Internet Help?”, in in Help?”, Internet the Does Civic Toward Step “Youthful 2007. T. Markham, and N. Couldry, S, Livingstone, Yourk: Routledge t in Democracy and Parties “Political 2003. C. Smith, and K. Logfren, Loader, Brian. 2007. “Introduction: Young Citizens In The Digital Digital The in In Displaced?”, Citizens Young “Introduction: 2007. Brian. Loader, drustvena istrazivanja Srbijiu pregrupisavanja politickog pravci moguci 2003. Zoran. Slavujevic, and Dragomir Pntic, Jovan, Komsic, manipulation? 2001. Vladimir. Goati, Web Content Analysis”, in in Analysis”, Content Web Ref Engagement: Civic Online Youth “Rethinking 2007. J. Ward, and R. Gerodimos, , Oct 4 , edited by Brian D. Loader, Routledge D.York: New, edited Brian by th Beograd: and Center democracy elections for free

on Ctzn I Te iia Ae Pltcl naeet Youn Engagement, Political Age: Digital The In Citizens Young edited by Brian D. Loader, New Brianby York:Loader, Routledge edited D. , edited by Brian D. Loader, New York: Routledge Loader, New Routledge edited Brianby D. York: , Elections in FRY from 1990 to 1998: will of people or electoral electoral or people of will 1998: to 1990 from FRY in Elections on Ctzn I Te iia Ae Pltcl naeet Y Engagement, Political Age: Digital The In Citizens Young Young Citizens In The Digital Age: Political Engagement, Youn Engagement, Political Age: Digital The In Citizens Young , edited by R. Gibson, P. Nixon and S. Ward, New New Ward, S. and Nixon P. Gibson, R. by edited , 64

. Beograd: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Institut za za Institut Stiftung, Ebert Friedrich Beograd: . Osnovne linije partijskih podela I podela partijskih linije Osnovne he Information Age”, in in Age”, Information he Age: Disaffected or or Disaffected Age: Tweeted, e Pol and People g Participation: Participation: lections On lections oung New New g CEU eTD Collection Nedeljkovic, Marko. 2012. Online pecanje glasaca,Nedeljkovic, Online pecanje Marko. 2012. in in Analysis Data "Qualitative 2002. Liz. Spencer, and Jane Ritchie, edited by Christine in Action”, Online Studying Analysis: Sphere “Web 2004. Kirsten. A. Foot, and Steven M. Schneider, Effects Referendums.Routlege.London: and 1,11 Electronics in Ch Campa Political Do 2002. David. M. Farrell, and Rudiger Schmitt-Beck, Saldaña, 2009. Johnny. 305-329.pp. B. Sage, Thousand Oaks: Problems Of Youth-Oriented Political Content On The Web”, in in Web”, The On Content Political Youth-Oriented Of Problems The Politics: Of Web The And Voters “Young 2007. L. Bennet, and M. Xenos, Zoran. Stoiljkovic, 2006. Morozov, Evgeniy. Morozov, 2011. Loader, Routledge York: New Promise and Problems of Youth-Orientated Political Content on the on Content Political Youth-Orientated of Problems and of Promise Web the and Voters “Young 2007. Stephen. Coleman, and Gustavo Mesch, 297– 313,Lanham: Rozzel, Mark Littlefield Rowman J. & Publishers in Media” New “The 2003. M. Cornfield, and J. Mayer, The Digital Age: Political Engagement, Young People and New New and People Young Engagement, Political Age: Digital The The Qualitative Research Companion Research Qualitative The

Hine. Oxford: In Oxford: Hine. Press The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers Qualitative Manual for The Coding Partijski Srbijesistem Partijski The Net Delusion: How Not To Liberate the World the Liberate To Delusion:The Net Not How Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Science Research on the Internet, the on Research Science Social in Issues Methods: Virtual ., edited by Huberman, A. Michael and Miles, Matthew Miles, and Michael A. Huberman, by edited .,

65 . glasnikBeograd: Sluzbeni

Status Media Power, Media Politics Media Power, Media 15 th February for Applied Policy Research", Research", Policy Applied for Young Citizens In The Digital The In Citizens Young Media Media Web” in in Web” . London : Sage, London : 1. . Ch. igns Matter: Campaign Campaign Matter: igns , Allen Lane, Allen edited by Brian D. D. Brian by edited Young Citizens In Citizens Young An Approach to to Approach An Promise And Promise oiis the Politics: , edited by edited , CEU eTD Collection g: oiia Eggmn, on Pol ad e Media New and People Young Engagement, Political Age:

York: Routledge 66

edited by Brian D. Loader, New New Loader, D. Brian by edited