Digital elite and traditional politicians

The article examines the transformation of legitimation of political power amid digitalisation and competition between traditional political elite and digital elite representatives. This process is linked to the growing networked nature of contemporary society and increasing role of social media platforms in daily life. Based on empirical analysis of social media accounts of politicians and influencers, the study identifies differences in online engagement effectiveness, communication strategies, and nature of published content. Online activity of both groups and engagement of audience into communication are analysed. The findings show that the digital elite representatives significantly outperform the politicians in audience size and loyalty. To consider the obtained indicators, qualitative content analysis methods are applied, and a typology of posts by digital and political elites is developed. The limited effectiveness of the politicians’ online engagement is attributed to their reliance on formal, structurally one-sided communication practices. In their public activity, they mainly focus on strengthening systemic legitimacy, which reduces their effectiveness on social networks. By contrast, the digital elite agents employ more personalised, emotional, and interactive ways of presenting information, generating audience interest and boosting popularity. Thus, the key difference between the two elites is that public communications of the official avatars are primarily aimed at building trust in government, rather than gaining personal popularity for its actors. The article stresses the need to adapt state communication to the new realities of digital competition for citizens’ attention and trust.

1. Akinshina V.D. Рroblem of controllability on the example of Telegram blocking. Alley of Science. 2018;8(24(4):570–575. (In Russian).

2. Bard A., Söderqvist J. Netocracy. The new power elite and life after capitalism. Trans. from Eng. V. Mishuchkov. St. Petersburg: Stockholm School of Economics; 2004. 256 p. (In Russian).

3. Bourdieu P. Political sociology. Trans. from Fr. N.A. Shmatko. Moscow: Socio-Logos; 1993. 336 p. (In Russian).

4. Castells M. Сommunication power. Trans. from Eng. N.M. Tylevich. Moscow: Urait; 2006. 459 p. (In Russian).

5. Dellmuth L., Tallberg J. Legitimacy politics. In: Legitimacy politics. Elite communication and public opinion in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2023. Pp. i–ii.

6. Dellmuth L. Individual sources of legitimacy beliefs: theory and data. In: Legitimacy in global governance. Sources, processes, and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. Pp. 37–55.

7. Dzyaloshinsky I.M. Civil communication and civil society. Moscow: MediaMir; 2009. 294 p. (In Russian).

8. Dzyaloshinsky I.M. The media space of Russia: сommunication strategies of social institutions. Moscow: Academy of Advanced Training and Professional Retraining of Educational Specialists; 2013. 480 p. (In Russian).

9. Gilley B. The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research. 2006;3(45):499–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00307.x

10. Heimans J., Timms H. New power. How power works in our hyperconnected world – and how to make it work for you. Trans. from Eng. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber; 2019. 336 p. (In Russian).

11. Kinyasheva Y.B. Social networks as a tool of political mobilization of citizens in modern Russia. Izvestia Tula State University. Humanitarian sciences. 2018;3:112–120. (In Russian).

12. Kiselev A.G., Kirichek P.N. The trends of political communication under social modernization. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2019;2(19):322–336. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2019-19-2-322-336

13. Komarova A.A. Political leaders and young people: interaction in social networks. Digital Sociology. 2021;1(4):42–49. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2021-4-1-42-49

14. Kravchenko V.I. Power and communication: problems of interaction in the information society. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance; 2003. 272 p. (In Russian).

15. Kryshtanovskaya O.V. Elite in social networks: new forms of feedback in the digital age. Digital Sociology. 2019;2(2):4–11. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2019-2-4-11

16. Kryshtanovskaya O.V., Filippova A.M. Research of political communications: the state and social media. Vestnik universiteta. 2018;6:171–176. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2018-6-171-176

17. Lavrov I.A. Parties in the digital jungle. Vestnik universiteta. 2021;12:168–178. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2021-12-168-178

18. Lavrov I.A., Sokol A.V. Russian authority and the internet: safety vs freedom of speech. Digital Sociology. 2019;2(2):12–24. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2019-2-12-24

19. Meshcheryakova N.N. Methodology for cognition of digital society. Digital Sociology. 2020;2(3):17–26. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2020-2-17-26

20. Nisnevich Yu.A. The information and communication stabilization of political system. RUDN Journal of Political Science. 2006;1(6):68–80. (In Russian).

21. Solovyov A.I. Political communication: to the problem of theoretical identification. Polis. Political Studies. 2002;3:5–18. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2002.03.02

22. Tallberg J., Bäckstrand K., Scholte J.A. (eds.) Legitimacy in global governance. Sources, processes, and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. 272 р.

23. Tigranyan E.A. “Yarovaya Package”: of anti-terrorist amendments: the reaction of Russian and foreign editions. Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin Series: Humanities. 2018;1(37):103–112. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18413/2075-4574-2018-37-1-103-112

24. Yushkina N.A. Public politicians’ electoral potential in social media. Vestnik universiteta. 2022;1:188–196. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2022-1-188-196