Advertisement

Selecting Candidates Online in Europe: A Comparison Among the Cases of M5S, Podemos and European Green Party

  • Maria Elisabetta Lanzone
  • Stefano Rombi
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter explores a recent trend in primary elections: the use of online platforms by new parties. In particular, it considers three cases in a comparative perspective: the Italian Five Star Movement (M5S), the Spanish Podemos and the European Green Party (EPG). As a way to emphasise its participatory purpose, in December 2012, the M5S organized for the first time an online primary to select parliamentary candidates. Since 2012, the M5S continues to promote the using of web platform among party members with a lot of consequences. In 2014, in the run-up to the European Elections, the EPG organized the first European-wide online primary proposed by a transnational party. More recently, in 2015, the Spanish Podemos employed an online platform called “participa.podemos.info” to select national candidates. So the main aim of this chapter is to analyse procedures and rules employed in online primaries by M5S, EPG and Podemos, in order to underline analogies and differences between these main cases. In general, the three cases underline a low participation level combined with a risk of manipulation by party central office. However, the EGP online primaries are, in all, the most inclusive, followed by those of Podemos and, finally, the case of the M5S.

References

  1. Bentivegna, S. (2006). Campagne elettorali in rete. Roma-Bari, Italy: Laterza.Google Scholar
  2. Bentivegna, S. (2012). Parlamento 2.0. Strategie di comunicazione politica in Internet. Milano, Italy: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  3. Bieber, C., & Leggewie, C. (2014). Unter Piraten. Erkundungen in einer neuen politischen Arena. Berlin, Germany: Transcript - Xtexte.Google Scholar
  4. Bordignon, F., & Ceccarini, L. (2013). Five stars as a cricket. Beppe Grillo shakes Italian politics. South European Society and Politics, 18(4), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conklin, D. (2009). The internet, political dissent, & technological capabilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  6. Di Majo, A. (2012). Grillo for President. Che cos’é, da dove viene e che cosa vuole veramente il Movimento 5 Stelle. Roma, Italy: Editori Internazionali Riuniti.Google Scholar
  7. Fiorini, A., & Venturino, F. (2012). Le primarie comunali 2011–2012, una descrizione basata su dati aggregati. In A. Seddone & M. Valbruzzi (Eds.), Primarie per il sindaco. Partiti, candidate, elettori (pp. 1–29). Milano, Italy: Egea.Google Scholar
  8. Gathmann, F. (2014, January 28). Urwahl zu Europa-Spitzenkandidatur: Das Mitmach-Fiasko der Grünen. Der Spiegel. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/geringe-beteiligung-beigruenen-urwahl-zu-europa-spitzenkandidatur-a-945792.html.
  9. Gibson, R. (2002). Elections online: Assessing internet voting in light of the Arizona Democratic primary. Political Science Quarterly, 116(4), 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gualmini, E. (2013). Introduzione. Da movimento a partito. In P. Corbetta & E. Gualmini (Eds.), Il partito di Grillo (pp. 7–28). Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  11. Hazan, R. (2002). Candidate selection. In P. Norris, R. G. Niemi, & L. LeDuc (Eds.), Comparing democracies (pp. 108–126). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hazan, R., & Rahat, G. (2006). Candidate selection: Methods and consequences. In R. S. Katz & W. J. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics (pp. 109–121). London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hazan, R., & Rahat, G. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jääsaari, J., & Hildén, J. (2014). European Pirate parties and the politics of communication. Research report on the project communication rights in the 2014 European election campaign. Communication Research Centre (CRC), Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  15. Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1993). The evolution of party organizations in Europe: The three faces of party organization. American Review of Politics, 14, 593–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1994). How parties organize: Change and adaptation in party organizations in Western democracies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Lanzone, M. E. (2014). The post-modern populism in Italy: The case of the Five Star Movement. In D. Woods & B. Wejnert (Eds.), The many faces of populism: Current perspectives, research in political sociology (Vol. 22, pp. 53–78). Bingley: Emerald Press Group.Google Scholar
  18. Lanzone, M. E. (2015). Il Movimento Cinque Stelle. Il popolo di Grillo dal Web al Parlamento. Novi Ligure, Italy: Edizioni Epoké.Google Scholar
  19. Lanzone, M. E., & Morini, M. (2015). Dalle “Regionalie” alle Regionali. Un’analisi empirica delle primarie a cinque stelle. In M. De Luca & S. Rombi (Eds.), Selezionare i presidenti. Le primarie regionali in Italia (pp. 137–153). Novi Ligure, Italy: Edizioni Epoké.Google Scholar
  20. Lanzone, M. E., Morini, M., & Scotto, A. (2016). Preference voting in local elections: Candidates (and voters) in the case of the Italian Five Star Movement. Paper presented at SISP Annual Conference, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  21. Lanzone, M. E., & Rombi, S. (2014). Who did participate in the online primary elections of the Five Star Movement (M5S) in Italy? Causes, features and effects of the selection process. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 7(1), 170–191.Google Scholar
  22. Manetto, F. (2015, December 21). ¿Son de Podemos sus 69 diputados? El País. Retrieved from http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2015/12/21/actualidad/1450715873_678456.html.
  23. Mikola, B. (2016). Online primaries and intra-party democracy: Candidate selection processes in Podemos and the Five Star Movement. Paper presented at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Central European University, Budapest Hungary.Google Scholar
  24. Mosca, L. (2012a). Politica online. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  25. Mosca, L. (2012b). La web politica. Istituzioni, candidati, movimenti fra siti, blog e social network. Firenze, Italy: Le Lettere.Google Scholar
  26. Mosca, L. (2015). Problemi e limiti del modello organizzativo «cybercratico» nell’esperienza del Movimento 5 Stelle. Ragion Pratica, 44(2), 37–52.Google Scholar
  27. Mosca, L., & Vaccari, C. (2011). Nuovi media, nuova politica? Partecipazione e mobilitazione da MoveOn al Movimento 5 Stelle. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  28. Mosca, L., Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2013). Il mito dei 5 Stelle digitali. E i voti ancora non si sanno. Europa Quotidiano online report. Retrieved from http://www.europaquotidiano.it/2013/01/04.
  29. Mosca, L., Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2015). How to select citizen candidates: The Five Star Movement’s online primaries and their implications. In A. De Petris & T. Pogunkte (Eds.), Anti-party parties in Germany and Italy (pp. 114–142). Roma, Italy: Luiss University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Prevost, A. K., & Schaffner, B. F. (2008). Digital divide or just another absentee ballot? American Politics Research, 36(4), 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rahat, G., & Hazan, R. Y. (2001). Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics, 7(3), 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Regalia, M. (2013). C’è sempre da imparare (ma non da Grillo e dai grillini). Istituto di Politica. Retrieved from http://www.istitutodipolitica.it/wordpress/2014/01/24/ce-sempre-da-imparare-ma-non-da-grillo-e-dai-grillini/.
  33. Riveiro, A. (2014). Pablo Iglesias se impone en las primarias de Podemos para las europeas. El Diario. [Accessed: 16/12/2015].Google Scholar
  34. Rombi, S., & Seddone, A. (2017). Rebel Rebel. Do primary elections affect legislators’ behaviour? Insights from Italy. Parliamentary Affairs, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsw036.
  35. Rudig, W. (2015). The greens in the 2014 European elections. Environmental Politics, 24(1), 156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandri, G., Seddone, A., & Venturino, F. (2015). Party primaries in comparative perspective. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  37. Santoro, G. (2012). Un Grillo Qualunque. Il Movimento 5 Stelle e il populismo digitale nella crisi dei partiti italiani. Roma, Italy: Castelvecchi Editore.Google Scholar
  38. Solop, F. I. (2002). Digital democracy comes of age: Internet voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary election. Political Science and Politics, 34(2), 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton and Oxford, US: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Van Biezen, I., & Poguntke, T. (2014). The decline of membership-based politics. Party Politics, 20(2), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Haute, E. (Ed.). (2016). Green parties in Europe. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Venturino, F. (2017). Primarie e sindaci in Italia. Politica locale e democrazia intrapartitica, 2004–2015. Napoli, Italy: Maggioli.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenovaGenovaItaly
  2. 2.University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations