Microsoft Word orenovani sarchevi doc
Yüklə 2,53 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
Kornely Kakachia, Tamar Pataraia 110
this knowledge, and their attitude differed. One interviewee commented, “We, the members of the youth wing, pay significant attention to social media because we think that this is the most flexible and fast way to communicate with the young people”. 18 Another expert interviewed during the research noted, “(Facebook) is necessary to disseminate ideas. This is especially true in the Georgian context. Here, we have dualistic propaganda channels: on the one hand, the government, and on the other hand, an oligarch maintains control over (traditional) mass media. Thus, social media is especially important for others, which helps to share views, propagate ideas”. 19 Political party representatives also stressed that it is not common for Internet users to join political parties via social media. Most newcomers in politics make their decision based on their involvement during electoral campaigns. Social media are more useful for political parties in opening up communication channels with the wider public and strengthening contacts among existing party members. Information campaigning by political parties is usually planned and implemented by network administrators working in party structures. Most of them limit their involvement to the publication of news reports/photos on political party events or live stream reports on press conferences that involve appearances by political leaders in social media. 20 Many experts acknowledge that the most interesting Facebook pages belong to president Saakashvili and opposition leader Ivanishvili. 21 Because Internet communication services do not fully cover the rural regions of Georgia and are quite expensive, political parties are motivated to develop more active campaigns and to help young people residing in Georgian villages to maintain active involvement in social networks, including mobile services: “We have a project in…which we teach youth how to use modern technologies, how to receive alternative information”. 22 Political party representatives admitted that it was not their goal to pay such significant attention to social media. According to these representatives, political parties are more or less actively engaged in social networking because 18 Interview conducted with T.Z., male, 1 June 2012 19 Interview conducted with G.G. male, 28 April 2012 20 Interview conducted with I.K., male 1 May, 2012 21 Interview conducted with S.L. male 2 June 2012 22 Interview conducted with T.Z. mail, 1 June 2012 Georgian Political Parties and Online Social Network: Politics as usual? 111
foreign experts working on capacity building promoted the idea among political parties and encouraged them to be active in social media. In recent years, foreign donors have worked actively on capacity-building activities in all Georgian political parties. Various donor organisations in the framework of EU and US state assistance programmes have promoted democratic institution- building processes in Georgia (e.g., National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI), Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD)). 23 According to the assessments of these donor organisations, political parties in Georgia face continuous challenges, including restrictions on media independence and the diversity of fundraising. Accordingly, they aimed to help parties develop structures and capacities that enable them to improve their performance and to function at a high level. The Georgian politicians who were interviewed during the research admitted that if they had stronger financial support, almost all political parties would be interested in establishing much more intensive and viable contacts with their potential voters. Under the Georgian law on Political Unions of Citizens, political parties that penetrated the existing threshold received three types of financing: direct transfers of funds from the state budget, capacity- building support, and free TV advertisements during the election year. 24 Based on the outcomes of the 2008 parliamentary elections, the ruling parties, the United National Movement and the Christian Democratic Movement, received 300,000 GEL (USD 180,000) each until 2012. Other political payers received much less funding compared to the aforementioned two parties. Political parties were also allowed to receive financial support from private contributors. A review of the spending of major political entities during the 2012 election campaign shows that two of the political entities that were most active in social media, the ruling party and the main opposition coalition, conducted the most expensive election campaigns and represented the greatest reach of the political parties in Georgia. Moreover, some of the interviewed experts noted that “Saakashvili and Ivanishvili have well-paid consultants working not only on the 23 Foresti, Marta, Welton, George and Jijelava, David. Review of international assistance to political party and party system development case study report: Georgia. August 2010. P.6 24 Transparency International Georgia, Finances of Political Parties 2012, April 2013 http://transparency.ge/sites/default/files/post_attachments/PF%20ENG_0.pdf Yüklə 2,53 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|