Does the Use of Social Networks by the European Parliament During the 2019 Election Campaign Decrease the Democratic Deficit?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
https://lib.uliege.be https://matheo.uliege.be Does the use of social networks by the European Parliament during the 2019 election campaign decrease the democratic deficit? Auteur : Thiry, Lucile Promoteur(s) : Grandjean, Geoffrey Faculté : Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres Diplôme : Master en communication multilingue, à finalité spécialisée en communication interculturelle et des organisations internationales Année académique : 2019-2020 URI/URL : http://hdl.handle.net/2268.2/10844 Avertissement à l'attention des usagers : Tous les documents placés en accès ouvert sur le site le site MatheO sont protégés par le droit d'auteur. Conformément aux principes énoncés par la "Budapest Open Access Initiative"(BOAI, 2002), l'utilisateur du site peut lire, télécharger, copier, transmettre, imprimer, chercher ou faire un lien vers le texte intégral de ces documents, les disséquer pour les indexer, s'en servir de données pour un logiciel, ou s'en servir à toute autre fin légale (ou prévue par la réglementation relative au droit d'auteur). Toute utilisation du document à des fins commerciales est strictement interdite. Par ailleurs, l'utilisateur s'engage à respecter les droits moraux de l'auteur, principalement le droit à l'intégrité de l'oeuvre et le droit de paternité et ce dans toute utilisation que l'utilisateur entreprend. Ainsi, à titre d'exemple, lorsqu'il reproduira un document par extrait ou dans son intégralité, l'utilisateur citera de manière complète les sources telles que mentionnées ci-dessus. Toute utilisation non explicitement autorisée ci-avant (telle que par exemple, la modification du document ou son résumé) nécessite l'autorisation préalable et expresse des auteurs ou de leurs ayants droit. Does the use of social networks by the European Parliament during the 2019 election campaign decrease the democratic deficit? Submitted by: Lucile Thiry (supervisor: Geoffrey Grandjean) University of Liège Philosophy and Literature Media, Culture and Communication Master Thesis Communication multilingue, à finalité spécialisée en communication interculturelle et des organisations internationales Academic Year 2019-2020 1 Summary With the use of social networks, the citizens became aware of the new challenges in politics. The European Parliament was a pioneer in the idea of enhancing its legitimacy thanks to social networks and saw a possibility to reach a transnational European audience. It is even more convenient as the institution suffers from a perceived “democratic deficit” and “communication deficit”: lack of transparency, remoteness of the institution, no support from the citizens, etc. In the context of the 2019 election campaign, however, the social networks turn out to be more complex than expected and the use the institution makes of the social networks is determining in the image it conveys. This work aims at showing the dynamics between “democratic deficit”, “2019 European Parliament elections” and “social networks” thanks to the use of theoretical literature but also thanks to the critical discourse analysis of content of the campaign from Facebook and Twitter. Table of contents Summary 2 Table of contents 2 Acknowledgement 4 1. Introduction and definition of the issue 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2. The use of social networks 3 2. The democratic deficit 4 2.1 Definition of the term “democratic deficit” 4 2.1.1 Weiler’s “No demos thesis” - Supranational approach 7 2.1.2 Majone’s Regulatory regime - infranational approach 9 2.1.2.1 Majone’s theory 9 2.1.2.2 In-depth look 13 Output legitimacy 14 Input legitimacy 14 Throughput Legitimacy 15 2.1.3 Moravcsik’s Defence of the EU’s legitimacy - intergovernmental approach 18 2.1.4 Føllesdal and Hix’s upgraded standard version of democratic deficit 21 2.2 This work theoretical framework 25 2 2.3 2019 elections and the democratic deficit 28 2.3.1 Global trends 28 2.3.2 Relation between these trends and the democratic deficit 32 2.3.2.1 “Is Euroscepticism and contestation the expression of the democratic deficit?” 33 2.3.2.2 “What is promoting politicization?” and “Does politicization of politics increase EU legitimacy?” 34 2.3.2.3 “Does a Europeanized discourse emerge?” 36 3. The role of communication in the EU 41 3.1. What is the role of communication for the European Parliament? 41 3.1.2 Historical communication strategy 41 3.2 Communication during the 2019 European Parliament elections 44 3.2.1. How did the EU institutions communicate? 44 3.2.1.1 The EU Commission 45 3.2.1.2 The European Parliament 46 3.2.2 Critical analysis 51 3.2.3 The media, a determining factor 56 3.2.4 Social networks as a news source 60 3.2.4.1 The users’ engagement 62 3.2.4.2 The treatment of information 66 3.2.4.3 An opportunity to generate opposition lacking to the EU political model? 70 3.2.4.4 Do social networks challenge the traditional media status quo? 73 3.2.4.5 The use of social networks by the European Parliament 73 4. Illustration with Critical Discourse Analysis 78 4.1 Methodology 78 4.2 Analysis 80 4.3 Results 99 5. Conclusion 100 6. Biography 103 7. Appendices 109 Appendix 1 - Parlemeter 2019 109 Appendix 2 - Voter turnout for the European Parliament elections 110 Appendix 3- Results of the 2019 European Parliament elections 110 Appendix 4 - Results of the 2014 European Parliament elections 111 Appendix 5-Typology of EU polity evaluation 114 Appendix 6 - Dimensions of Europeanization on Twitter: How a European Online Public Sphere May Take Shape 114 Appendix 7 - Digital architecture of Facebook and Twitter 115 3 Acknowledgement I would like to thank all the people who contributed directly or indirectly to the writing of this master thesis. First, I would like to express my gratitude to Geoffrey Grandjean, who promoted my thesis and for the time he dedicated to guide my writing. I would also like to thank all the teaching staff who have contributed to my personal and intellectual enrichment during my experience at the University of Liège. I would also like to thank all the people who surrounded me and supported me during this writing. Abbreviations EU: European Union EP: European Parliament MEP: Member of the European Parliament PO: Press officers ICT: Information and Communications Technology DG Com: The Commission’s Directorate-General for Communication 4 1. Introduction and definition of the issue 1.1 Introduction While politics are at a time of crisis and reinventing itself and ICTs are an integral part of citizen’s lives, the promotion of institutions and in this case, politics in social networks was seen as an ideal solution: it would make people closer to the institution. Pioneer of this idea, the European Parliament saw the social networks platforms as an opportunity to fix its “democratic deficit”, the perception of its illegitimacy by the citizens. In this way, the institution aims at “closing the perceived gap” between the institution and the ordinary citizens. Yet, this ideal solution has been questioned and even more now as social networks have shown some failures to protect users’ data and to safeguard the occidental idea of democracy. Data manipulation during important electoral events such as the Brexit Referendum and the election of US President Donald Trump infringed and questioned the democratic process. However, in 2019, not using social networks would mean failing to understand what is at stake for EU public relations. Indeed, in opposition to national media outlets, social networks are transcending national boundaries, which means it is an ideal communication channel for the European Parliament, targeting all the European citizens. The European Parliament thereby has to figure out how to deal with all these challenges, hence the question is raised: “Does the use of social networks by the European Parliament during the 2019 election campaign decrease the democratic deficit?”. This work aims at understanding how the European Parliament, thanks to communication on social networks, deals with the challenges it faces and if it achieves or not to overcome the perceived “democratic deficit”. I am fully aware that, by quoting Chiara Valentini and Giorgia Nesti: “communication cannot make the European Union (EU) function better, nor solve its economic, social, political and environmental problems. However, it helps raising awareness and mobilizing people. Communication can be a leading tool for enhancing identity, integration, respect and 1 democracy ”1 . At first glance, my hypothesis is that communication on the social networks may not reduce the democratic deficit in its “policy achievements aspects” but reduce the democratic deficit perceived by the citizens thanks to its engagement on social networks. In this sense, these effects would overcome anti-democratic aspects such as data manipulation. To answer the research question, I will summarize and evaluate scientific literature on the key concepts of the question. First, I will define the concept of “democratic deficit” and analyse the main theories: Weiler’s “no demos thesis”, Majone’s “Regulatory regime”, Moravcsik’s “Defence of the EU’s legitimacy” to Føllesdal and Hix’s “upgraded standard version of democratic deficit”. From these theories, I will generate my own theoretical framework from which I will be able to evaluate the European Parliament’s 2019 campaign on social networks regarding the democratic deficit. In the second part, I will get a global picture of the scholars’ opinions on the 2019 elections in relation with the democratic deficit to understand the dynamics that are established between the elections and the democratic deficit. The third part analyses the role of communication in the 2019 European Parliament elections. More precisely, I will discuss the communication tradition of the EU and the emergence of the idea of “communication deficit”. I will take into account the communication objectives and strategies of the 2019 elections.