Foreign Affairs
English
Submit an article
Back to Issue: No.5, 2025

The role of digital platforms in the transformation of political parties

Dario Sipos

Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify the role of digital platforms in the transformation of political parties, particularly the structure, communication, and participation. The methodology was based on an interdisciplinary approach that combined case analysis, conceptual models from political science, digital sociology and organisation theory. As a result of the study, it was revealed that digital platforms radically changed the mechanisms of political communication, transforming these mechanisms into interactive forms of interaction. The introduction of digital participation caused the emergence of new formats of intra-party democracy, particularly through crowdsourcing and direct online voting. Structural changes in parties demonstrated the weakening of the traditional hierarchy and the growth of network forms of coordination. Case studies showed that digitalisation caused both democratic innovations and centralisation of control over platforms, i.e. digital platforms contributed to the hybridisation of party structures, combining hierarchical and network models, as in the cases of Rousseau (Italy) and LiquidFeedback (Germany); digital platforms expanded citizens’ participation through e-voting and crowdsourcing (Podemos, Decidim), but also led to centralisation of data control and manipulation of algorithms (Trump’s campaigns, criticism of Movimento 5 Stelle). The formation of hybrid party models was defined, which adapted digital tools within classical institutional structures. New practices such as microtargeting and personalisation changed the nature of leadership and legitimacy. It was established that the effectiveness of digital transformation depended on the national institutional context. In conclusion, digital platforms created both new opportunities and risks for party functioning, and the impact was ambiguous and contextually dependent. The most effective appeared to be hybrid organisational models, which combined the traditional with the innovative. The practical significance of the study lay in the formation of tools for the optimisation of party structures, the improvement of electoral technologies and the development of regulatory frameworks on digital democracy, which could be used by political parties, government bodies and civil society to increase the effectiveness of political governance

Keywords

deliberation; crowdsourcing; electronic voting; hybrid structure; microtargeting

References

  1. Angelucci, D., & Vittori, D. (2021). Are all populist voters the same? Institutional distrust and the Five Star Movement in Italy. South European Society and Politics, 26(3), 303-327. doi: 10.1080/13608746.2022.2028503.
  2. Barberà, O., Sandri, G., Correa, P., & Rodríguez-Teruel, J. (2021). Political parties transition into the digital era. In O. Barberà, G. Sandri, P. Correa & J. Rodríguez-Teruel (Eds.), Digital parties: The challenges of online organisation and participation (pp. 1-22). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_1.
  3. Bayless, J.L. (2022). Governing the Twitterverse: How social media has transformed modern political communication. (Doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States).
  4. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://blacklivesmatter.com/.
  5. Boczkowski, P.J., & Papacharissi, Z. (Eds.). (2018). Trump and the media. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  6. Borucki, I. (2022). Digital transformation as organizational change for political parties – a narrative review. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4098439.
  7. Caluwaerts, D., Bernaerts, K., Kesberg, R., Smets, L., & Spruyt, B. (2023). Deliberation and polarization: A multi-disciplinary review. Frontiers in Political Science, 5, article number 1127372. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1127372.
  8. Carazo-Barrantes, C. (2021). Agenda-setting in a social media age: Exploring new methodological approaches. The Agenda Setting Journal, 5(1), 31-55. doi: 10.1075/asj.20006.car.
  9. da Silva Neto, V.J., & Chiarini, T. (2021). Technological progress and political systems: Non-institutional digital platforms and political transformation. Technology in Society, 64, article number 101460. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101460.
  10. Dashkevych, S. (2024). Implementation of artifical intelligence in modern judiciary. Law, Policy and Security, 2(2), 52-59. doi: 10.62566/lps/2.2024.52.
  11. Decidim. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://decidim.org/.
  12. Deseriis, M. (2021). Reducing the burden of decision in digital democracy applications: A comparative analysis of six decision-making software. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 48(2), 401-427. doi: 10.1177/01622439211054081.
  13. Deseriis, M. (2022). Is liquid democracy compatible with representative democracy? Insights from the experience of the Pirate Party Germany. Participation and Conflict, 15(2), 466-481. doi: 10.1285/i20356609v15i2p466.
  14. Dommett, K., McKelvey, F., & Kefford, G. (2024). The platformisation of party politics? Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 4. doi: 10.51685/jqd.2024.018.
  15. Endersby, J.W., & Towle, M.J. (2025). Ranked choice voting. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/9780197798959.001.0001.
  16. European Commission. (2022). Code of Practice on Disinformation. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-disinformation.
  17. Gerbaudo, P. (2019). Are digital parties more democratic than traditional parties? Evaluating Podemos and Movimento 5 Stelle’s online decision-making platforms. Party Politics, 27(4), 730-742. doi: 10.1177/1354068819884878.
  18. Gherghina, S., Barberá, O., & Lisi, M. (2025). Political parties and the use of digitalization in daily politics: Introduction to the special issue. Swiss Political Science Review, 31(1), 5-13. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12651.
  19. Giacomini, G. (2022). To be or not to be “Rousseauian”. The rise and fall of “digital utopianism” in the Five Star Movement. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 14(2), 149-166. doi: 10.29379/jedem.v14i2.704.
  20. Górny, M. (2021). I-voting – opportunities and threats. Conditions for the effective implementation of Internet voting on the example of Switzerland and Estonia. Przegląd Politologiczny, 1, 133-146. doi: 10.14746/pp.2021.26.1.9.
  21. Huerta McWhirter, R. (2024). Evolution of political campaigning: A comprehensive analysis of changing dynamics of campaign strategies and voter data. (Bachelor’s thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA).
  22. International Downtown Association. (n.d.). IDA Canada 2025 federal election toolkit results. Retrieved from https://downtown.org/ida-canada-2025-federal-election-toolkit-results/.
  23. Iranzo-Cabrera, M., & Casero-Ripollés, A. (2023). Political entrepreneurs in social media: Self-monitoring, authenticity and connective democracy. The case of Íñigo Errejón. Heliyon, 9(2), article number e13262. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13262.
  24. Larrondo-Ureta, A., & Meso-Ayerdi, K. (2021). Political communication evolution in the digital hybrid media system: Innovation and experimentation as strategies towards a new paradigm. In B. García-Orosa (Ed.), Digital political communication strategies. The Palgrave Macmillan series in international political communication (pp. 43-58). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-81568-4_3.
  25. Lioy, A., Del Valle, M. E., & Gottlieb, J. (2019). Platform politics: Party organisation in the digital age. Information Polity, 24(1), 41-58. doi: 10.3233/IP-180093.
  26. Lipschultz, J.H. (2022). Social media and political communication (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003170471.
  27. LiquidFeedback. (n.d.). Retried from https://liquidfeedback.com/en/index.html.
  28. Lisi, M. (2025). Party digitalization and website features: A comparative study of party organizations. Swiss Political Science Review, 31(1), 53-78. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12646.
  29. Loomio. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.loomio.com/.
  30. Malý, M. (2024). Who holds the power in digital parties? The case of the Czech Pirate Party. Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review, 24(1), 11-39. doi: 10.62229/sprps24-1/1.
  31. Martí, J. (2022). Crowdsourcing crisis management and democratic legitimacy. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 3(2), article number 15. doi: 10.1145/3532670.
  32. Mason, R., & Farah, H. (2023). Electoral Commission apologises for security breach involving UK voters’ data. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/aug/08/uk-electoral-commission-registers-targeted-by-hostile-hackers.
  33. Min, A. (2023). Examining the role of strategic communication in political campaigns: Leveraging social media, data analytics, and persuasive messaging. doi: 10.13140/rg.2.2.31476.53124.
  34. MoveOn. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://front.moveon.org/.
  35. NationBuilder. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nationbuilder.com/.
  36. Nunes, R. (2021). Neither vertical nor horizontal: A theory of political organization. London: Verso Books.
  37. Peña, A.M., & Gold, T. (2023). The party-on-the-Net: The digital face of partisan organization and activism. Information, Communication & Society, 26(16), 3257-3274. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2022.2147399.
  38. Podemos. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://podemos.info/.
  39. Pruchnicka, P. (2023). Emmanuel Macron’s 2017 and 2022 presidential campaigns: Selected aspects. Political Preferences, 31(1), 31-46. doi: 10.31261/polpre.2023.1.31-46.
  40. Raniolo, F., Tarditi, V., & Vittori, D. (2021). Political parties and new ICTs: Between tradition and innovation. In O. Barberà, G. Sandri, P. Correa & J. Rodríguez-Teruel (Eds.), Digital parties (pp. 181-204). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_10.
  41. Riigikogu. (1999). Identity Documents Act. Retrieved from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/504022020003/consolide.
  42. Riley, F., Allen, D.K., & Wilson, T.D. (2022). When politicians and the experts collide: Organization and the creation of information spheres. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(8), 1127-1139. doi: 10.1002/asi.24618.
  43. Rousseau. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rousseau-sa.fr/en/solutions/numerique.
  44. Roy, S. (2021). Target politics: Digital and data technologies and election campaigns – a view from India. In R. Vasudevan (Ed.), Media and the constitution of the political: South Asia and beyond (pp. 285-310). New Delhi: Sage.
  45. Sánchez Medero, G. (2024). Digital models for the selection of party organs and election candidates in Spanish political parties: The impact of intraparty democracy. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, article number 1442331. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2024.1442331.
  46. Schäfer, A. (2021). Digital heuristics: How parties strategize political communication in hybrid media environments. New Media & Society, 25(3), 522-539. doi: 10.1177/14614448211012101.
  47. Schäfer, S., Müller, P., & Ziegele, M. (2024). The double-edged sword of online deliberation: How evidence-based user comments both decrease and increase discussion participation intentions on social media. New Media & Society, 26(3), 1403-1428. doi: 10.1177/14614448211073059.
  48. ServiceNow. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://developer.servicenow.com/dev.do#!/guides/yokohama/now-platform/now-platform-guide/now-platform-guide-intro.
  49. Sheikh, S.A. (2024). Data and democracy: Social media analytics in political campaign strategies. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 9(1), 204-211. doi: 10.22161/IJELS.91.27.
  50. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  51. The Digital Democracy Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://digitaldemocracyinitiative.net/.
  52. Theuwis, M.I., Van Ham, C., & Jacobs, K. (2025). A meta‐analysis of the effects of democratic innovations on participants’ attitudes, behaviour and capabilities. European Journal of Political Research, 64(2), 960-984. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12722.
  53. Tóth, F., Mihelj, S., Štětka, V., & Kondor, K. (2022). A media repertoires approach to selective exposure: News consumption and political polarization in Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(4), 884-908. doi: 10.1177/19401612211072552.
  54. Wolinetz, S.B. (Ed.). (2023). Parties and party systems in liberal democracies. London: Routledge.
  55. Your Priorities. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.yrpri.org/domain/3.

Suggested citation

Sipos, D. (2025). The role of digital platforms in the transformation of political parties. Foreign Affairs, 35(5), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/5.2025.39
English
Submit an article