Political hibernation in‐between elections? Exploring the online communication and mobilisation capacities of Nigeria's political parties

• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Author: Temitayo Isaac Odeyemi,Gideon Uchechukwu Igwebueze,Omomayowa Olawale Abati,Adeola Opeyemi Ogundotun
• Date: 01 December 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2804

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Political hibernation in-between elections? Exploring the

online communication and mobilisation capacities of

Nigeria's political parties

Temitayo Isaac Odeyemi

1,2

| Gideon Uchechukwu Igwebueze

3,4

|

Omomayowa Olawale Abati

5,6

| Adeola Opeyemi Ogundotun

7

1

Department of Political Science, Obafemi

Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

2

School of Politics and International Studies,

University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

3

School of Law, Liverpool John Moores

University, Liverpool, UK

4

Research Department, Centre for Youth

Social Development and Promotion of Amity,

Abuja, Nigeria

5

Department of Political Science, Kings

University, Ode-Omu, Nigeria

6

Department of Political Science, Stellenbosch

University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

7

Department of Political Science, Universität

Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

Correspondence

Temitayo Isaac Odeyemi, Department of

Political Science, Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria; School of Politics

and International Studies, University of Leeds,

Leeds, UK.

Email: odeyemiisaac11@gmail.com

A noteworthy limitation among existing studies on the use of online technologies by

political parties is the focus on elections. This study extends the frontiers by examining

the extent to which Nigeria's political parties use their websites, as well as Facebook

and Twitter platforms to communicate and mobilise citizens during and beyond elec-

tions. Using web assessment survey, data collected from the online platforms of regis-

tered political parties in February 2015 and February 2017 were analysed—to see

trends in online activities during (2015 elections) and outside of elections (2017). The

study reveals that the parties are caught in the web of the contradictory possibilities of

digital engagement. On the one hand, is an online quiescence in the period between

elections, which is premised on poor party institutionalisation. On the other hand, the

parties are largely unable to reverse elements of institutionalisation challenges by

leveraging digital tools to develop roots in the society and boost their public image. This

quandary helps to demonstrate where the Nigerian party system fits in the equalisation

versus normalisation debate on the utility of digital tools.

KEYWORDS

digital politics, Facebook, Nigerian political parties, party website, Twitter

1|INTRODUCTION

Political parties are critical democratic institutions that have a duty to

foster citizen engagement and interest in political processes. Broadly,

their functions are electoral and non-electoral. Parties sponsor candi-

dates for offices with the hope of controlling the apparatus of govern-

ment. Beyond elections, Almond and Powell (in Chunga, 2014) attest to

the duties of parties in performing input functions within the political

system. These relate to political socialisation and recruitment, interest

aggregation and political communication. Parties share responsibilities to

perform these functions with non-state civil society actors, which have

no direct interest in capturing political power. Notwithstanding, evidence

in the literature suggests that these political functions are ‘the unique

domain of political parties’(Fukuyama, 2015, p. 19), or, put differently,

‘performed best by political parties’(Conway, 1993, p. 549).

Both ruling and opposition parties perform these non-electoral

functions, albeit from different dimensions. While parties in power have

a duty to align their policy actions with the realities of the manifestoes

upon which they rode to power, parties in opposition are expected to

galvanise the public towards scrutinising the policy actions and offering

alternatives (Yagboyaju & Simbine, 2020). In both cases, these gravitate

towards communication and mobilisation, aimed at providing ‘platforms

that [allow the public to] discuss policy issues as well as to generate and

evaluate proposals’(Gerl et al., 2018, p. 87).

The extent to which parties perform communication and

mobilisation functions, is very often a reflection of the level of

institutionalisation of their activities (Mair, 2013; Whiteley, 2011).

While the literature highlights dimensions and definitions (Arter &

Kestilä-Kekkonen, 2014), this study, borrowing from Randall and

Svåsand (2002, p. 12), focuses on the notion that a party

Received: 17 May 2021 Revised: 6 December 2021 Accepted: 13 December 2021

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2804

J Public Affairs. 2022;22(Suppl. 1):e2804. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1of12

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2804