icegov2012 proceedings

Both surveys were open to interpretation, which lead developers
and activists to argue a great deal about what was the true public
opinion in the matter.
Several respondents, both activists and government officials, have
called this a sham process, and claimed that politicians had no
intention other than to soothe the opposition. When faced with
these charges, politicians have denied them in the interviews,
claiming they created the workshops and surveys in an honest
attempt to be more inclusive.
The municipal administration used the input from the workshops
and survey, and came up with 9 alternatives for the new area
development plan. At this stage only the building footprint, how
much of the cove to set aside for buildings, was discussed. The
argument for this was that previous debates had tried to cover too
much, which lead to no decision on the overall plan. The
administration supported an alternative which meant 75% of the
area was to be developed, and the city council voted in support of
this in a council meeting held late March 2011, with 21 votes
against 18.
In august 2011 the city council assembled again, to vote on
building heights and the contract for development with the private
investor and his partners. After long debate, which included a vote
on a change to the area plan passed in the last meeting, the council
again voted in the support of development, with 24 votes against
14.
Both meetings had a large audience consisting mainly of activists
aged between 40 and 70. There were few, if any, people under the
age of 35 present, in spite of activist claims that youth were very
engaged in the case and were big supporters of a recreational park.
In both meetings, activists created a lot of disturbance, causing the
mayor to threaten to close off the meeting to the public. After the
August meeting, activists were furious, claiming the politicians
had failed to listen to the public.
In the autumn of 2011 there was a new municipal election. Once
again the activists created a pamphlet showing how people could
vote if they wanted “park-friendly” politicians in the new city
council, who could re-open the case. The lists were distributed
online, through a web site, were promoted on Facebook and also
spread through physical means and word of mouth.
Although not a complete success, the activists were once again
able to influence who got elected to the city council. About 400
people seemed to follow the activists’ advice.
At the time data collection ended (November 2011), the previous
city council’s decision had not been up for discussion in the new
city council, and the new mayor has told the media that it is not
likely the case will be reopened.
However, the activists have vowed to keep on fighting, and at the
time of writing have complained to regional authorities about
procedural errors in the existing resolution. The complaints will
most likely not be heard, at least not lead to changes in the
development plans.
Even though it seems as if the activists have lost their fight, there
is no doubt that citizen initiated participation has had considerable
influence in this case. The activists have, through their targeted
efforts, managed to influence the composition of two city
councils, have made the city council swing against development
several times, and through this they have delayed development for
52
almost 5 years, and forced the city to concessions such as the
workshops and survey, as well as the creation of several reports
on noise, pollution and other issues.
5. FINDINGS
In this section the findings from the genre systems of print media
(letters to the editor) and social media (Facebook groups) are
presented, followed by an analysis of how the two systems rate in
terms of contributing to the public sphere.
5.1 Genre Systems
The individual genres were identified through applying the
5W1H-method to letters to the editor in the printed edition of the
local newspaper, and postings on Facebook groups created to
discuss the case. In order to examine the genre system, additional
columns for the system were added, as well as a column showing
the relation between genres. These additional columns were
inspired by [36].
Earlier research conducted by the author has shown that there are
three objectives for why politicians choose to communicate in
digital media. These are dialogue with citizens, contributions from
citizens, and involvement in party activities [39]. Effective
political communication should thus address these.
These objectives can be interpreted and as genres in their own
right. Table 1 shows the three objectives as genres.
The genres identified in the discussion spaces we are observing
can be analyzed as to which of these “genre objectives” they
support (table 2), and this knowledge can be applied by site
administrators and politicians in such a way as to facilitate the use
of genres which are most likely to lead to the desired objective.
Table 1: Political objectives as genres
Dialogue Contribution Involvement
Why Involve citizens in
public debate
Knowledge
about citizen
concerns
Raise funds.
Get people to
volunteer
When Continuous Election time Election time
What Conversation
between citizens
and
politicians/citizens
and citizens
Who Politicians, party
members, citizens
Q&A. Voter
stories
Politicians,
party
members,
voters
Competitions,
membership
forms,
information
Voters,
sympathizers
Where SNS, web site SNS, web site SNS, web site
How Encourage
dialogue.
Open and personal
language. Citizengenerated
content.
Encourage
contributions
and questions
from voters
Competitions,
theme sites,
crosspublication