Paper for ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik, August 2011

1. Norwegian nationalist parties
on Web 2.0
Paper for ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik,
August 2011
Øyvind Kalnes, Lillehammer College

2. Highlights
How three “nationalist” parties (the Progress Party,
Democrats and the Coast Party) have used Web 2.0.
• Challenges inherent in adopting a new technology not
necessarily perfectly adaptable to the goals of political
parties.
• Highlighted by acute communication crisis (22/7)
Data
• Focus on blogging, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
• Data from the above from mid-2007 to mid-2011
• Interviews with party informants 2007 and 2011
• Preliminary data on Web 2.0 after tragedy of 22/7

3. Overview of the paper
Nationalism as concept and
political force
Web 2.0 and its political
implications
Development of Internet politics
and Web 2.0 in Norway, with
data on the parties on different
platforms.
A preliminary discussion and
conclusion.

4. Research questions
Online politics
1. Timing and ambition of adoption
2. Interparty competition
3. Patterns of participation
4. Form and contents of communication
Offline politics
1. Effects on online politics
2. How online politics affect offline

5. The concept of political nationalism
Ethnic – civic (republican)
Integration debate:
Ethnic blending into civic («liberal
nationalism), based on cultural
compatibility.
Two conflict-dimensions
1. Sovereignty
2. Immigration - solidarity.

6. Nationalism as a party political force
Immigration-solidarity significant since late 1980s
Global-national less significant and less stable
Dimensions do not correlate positively

7. Parties and nationalism
National sovereignty
Immigration-
solidarity

8. Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Web 1.0: Online normalization
• Offline organizational factors such as
institutionalization and resource access
• Online technology «grafted on»
Web 2.0 unlike Web 1.0 technology:
Writer-friendly, decentralized and anarchical

9.  Pluralism 2.0: E-ruption in
interparty competition
 Participation 2.0: Bottom
up, grass root
 Deliberation 2.0
 Offline effects?
Web 2.0 effects

10. Challenge for party organization

Direct, spontaneous channel for
individual radical politicians with Web
2.0 mindset

Quantity and speed of communication

Ripple effects (two steps via mass
media)

The good ambassadors vs. the loose
cannons

11. Nationalist party specifics?
« (some) generic change will take
place among parties; (but)
adaptation cannot be understood
as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model …..

while some parties are expected
to emphasize the participatory
aspects of the new technology,
others will focus on the possibilities
for top-down information
dissemination and broad
monitoring of public opinion”
(Römmele, 2003)

12. New parties as offline organizations

Affected by different
technological environments

Structure between ‘party’ and
‘movement’

Organizational norms: Left-
libertarian parties vs. and
post-industrial extreme right –
Bottom up vs. Top down
(Kitschelt, Ignazi and Gunther &
Diamond).

13. Internet & Web 2.0 in Norwegian politics
Web 1.0 “normalized” by 2005, reflecting party resources
2007 - 2011 Web 2.0 in first three campaigns.
• Development from activist/grassroots towards
normalization through party organization and reflecting
party resources

14. Media: Hype and attention

15. Nationalist hesitance
Nationalist parties passive in first phase.
Top down in second phase.
Voters
A rational approach for vote maximizers.
Still small offline effect.
Party system
Little cartel-like, systematic
discrimination of the nationalist
parties as such
Organization
Leadership- and top-down oriented
Weak party organization unable to
secure a streamlined top-down
implementation

16. Loose cannons
Individual radicalism and /
or thoughtlessness
Lax party control
Small audiences
Little collateral damage?

17. Monitoring by mass media
Any person who willfully or through
gross negligence publicly utters a
discriminatory or hateful
expression shall be liable to fines or
imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years.
An expression that is uttered in such a
way that it is likely to reach a large
number of persons shall be deemed
equivalent to a publicly uttered
expression, cf. section 7, No. 2

18. After 22/7
22/7 mass murders draw
extreme comments in and
outside Web 2.0 and extra
media attention

Party organization unprepared
/ unable to control.

Embarrassing revelations /
statements on Web 2.0

From politicians / activists

Inability to moderate and set
the premises for discussion

From «friends», followers and
commentators
“..or at least hope that the ones killed
(by ABB) are immigration friendly
socialists”, “
“Naïve socialists are to be blamed, as
they have let in all kinds of filth on two
or four legs”.
«What did they think would be the
effect of an irresponsible and
unconntrolled mass immigration by
people with a foreign culture and
religion»

19. Conclusions
1. Small effects on interparty competition, but ...
2 Hesitation and use of Web 1.0 «mindset», but
...
3. Balkanization, not deliberation
The buts ...
1. However small the Web 2.0 audiences,
attention from mass media may lead to
irreparable offline damage to the party.
2. Difficulties in implementing a Web 1.5 model
in movement type parties with activists with
more radical views than the official policies.