Scholarly interest for the impact of technologies on democracy has raised in parallel to the decline of political participation. Technology has often been seen as either one of the causes of the crisis of representative democracy or as a powerful remedy to heal the negative externalities generated by party oligopolies. <p>The study of the impact of new media in party politics or presidential elections dates back the forties (with the outgrowth of radio) and has evolved in cyclical waves until today, covering the emergence of television, the development of global telecommunications, the birth of internet and finally what’s popularly called the Web 2.0.<p>The notion of eDemocracy emerges from this dynamic, but is in a league of its own. <p>There is no agreement on many of the terms that one needs to use to dissect its meaning. Scholars diverge on virtually every foundational concept: from the very definition of democracy and interactivity, to the core functions of political parties, to the definition of propaganda as opposed to political communication or to political marketing. As a consequence of this, there is little agreement on both what could be done in theory with eDemocracy and what is actually done in practice. <p>A permanent tension exist between idealtypes and real types in this domain. <p>The aim of this research is to prove this thesis with the largest and most global research unit of political parties web sites at the time of writing. <p>The choice of an information architecture approach has allowed to cover some uncharted territory while providing a first set of data on the structures of the political web (in 2004-2005) for public scrutiny. <p>The core of this research contribution consists in a basic taxonomy and a set of data (on the intentions and on the information architecture) resulting from a 10 years observational research on the early actors of the political web (stricto sensu i.e. 2073 political parties web sites), reviewed with a new degree of detail (through an ad hoc software procedure aiming at dissecting the structure of political web sites) and grouped into 3 main families (protosites, mesosites and neosites) of party web sites. These clusters of homogeneous web sites share a common way to deal with space, with files, with usability, with multimedia. <p>Classic views on eDemocracy insisted on the improvement deriving from more political information online: in theory, the more information we have, the more we can compare it and use it for our political orientation/participation. In practice, to describe the problem in cybernetic terms, this empirical research shows that load appears to be an issue for most party sites: there is too often either too little content (one out of five party sites around the world is a "protosite") or too much (11% of the observed universe materializes in real “content caverns”). A little more than 4% of the sites (a high end mesosite or neosite) had between 10000 and 48,000 links !<p>Cyber optimists have seen in the proliferation of party web sites a sign of improved party competition. For political minorities or for incumbent parties, in the political web, like in eCommerce, what really makes the difference is the conversion rate i.e. the number of visitors that turn into involved voters. Now, with the type of technical, socio-economical constraints reducing the widespread access to the net, with motivational factors (trust and degree of social connectedness) that may alter the individual’s response to the online information offer, with the imperfect implementation (in terms of usability) of the information architecture requirements for optimal political persuasion and communication online, the actual conversation rate of political parties web sites is likely to remain modest. <p>One of the most characteristic uses of the political web discovered in this research is to provide cloud like archival services for the party community. Parties - in the first ten years of the political web - were trying to check mainstream media and use their sites as a low cost, contemporary version of the party newspapers of the 70s. <p>Although this dissertation is not investigating the specific impact of party sites, the structural analysis carried out in the empirical validation suggests that the architecture of party sites in the years 1995-2005 was developing in such a way to be less and less capable of injecting meaningful inputs in the circuitry of modern democratic institutions. Engaged in a frontal competition with traditional news media (and deprived of the same assets), the early political web stricto sensu (and the set of interactive applications it contains) seems to be too a weak vector to channel adequate stimuli to alter and modify electoral processes or institutional dynamics.<p>The majority of the respondents of a political webmasters survey (107 individuals responded to the survey) carried out in the course of this research project indicates that the party site is not the party's leaders favourite platform to launch messages (64% of the answers disagree or strongly disagree to the statement). The majority of the respondents in the same empirical fieldwork agrees to the following statements: “the web is not the most important tool for the party communication strategy (58%)”, “key messages are published simultaneously on all media available (77%)”, “the party has created this site to allow people to contact candidates directly (63%)”, “the biggest part of the interaction with the public happens live, in meetings - the web is used essentially to post the party documents and to give news to the electorate (73%)”.<p>The most interesting results of this question are related to the transactive / mediating role of party communication online. It is beyond any doubt that in the view of these respondents their site has not been created “to invite the opposition to discuss with us (81%)”. If there is a politically relevant process that goes on in these sites it’s really among like-minded. <p>The mission statement [our party site is meant] “to gather the wants and needs of the electorate” splits respondents in two (54% of the respondents agrees and 47% and disagrees), but 73% of all respondents also agrees that most of the interactions with the electorate are non mediated, thus limiting the relevance of the political web stricto sensu to a mere information delivery platform. <p>The central thesis emerging from this first major reality check of the political web is that the structure of most party sites is simply not made to generate the ambitious levels of deliberative democracy. Not only a large number of party sites are microscopic, but they lack the basic means for human to human interactivity, a criticism that .In 34,7% of the cases scrutinized in the survey the sites lacked even of the mailto command (used to allow end users to write mails to the webmaster). In 51.9% of the cases there is no form at all, to facilitate structured communications between the party and the audience. The majority of the early actors of the political web were not structured to engage in deliberative activities. Only a fraction of the universe (between 1 and 2%) showed multiple forms and input methods corresponding to advanced neosites (along the model of the US Green Party Action Centre) or the so called over exposure sites (such as the Argentinian Humanista party). The bottom line is that interactivity levels found – worldwide - on the largest array of political parties sites were (in the period between 1995 and 2005) simply discouraging, if one tends to believe in the rhetoric of eDemocracy. <p>A corollary of my central thesis is that the reality of the political web generated by parties between 1995 and 2005, shows a significant presence of techniques and communication forms typical of political marketing and propaganda. ‘Commands’, calls for ortopraxy, confrontational communication and a growing number of ‘digital tricks’ structure the toolbox of the best party web architects. A form of weak propaganda (the only sort of ‘naked hand’ propaganda that most political parties can afford to pay) has invaded and captured cyberspace. And the user community is becoming increasingly aware of this.<p>This research does not cover the user dimension. However marginal data obtained in one of the three empirical sections (the Web Master survey) seem to indicate that the political web (of the early years) maintained the capacity to swing some marginal seats. <p>This research covers forms of interactivity based on BBS, online fora and blogs but does not cover the historical period of the development of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. The scientific conclusions are therefore intrinsically limited in value to the decade they refer to, but it is argued in the conclusions that recent surveys (Internet and Campaign 2010 Survey by Pew) do not seem to indicate that the so called Web 2.0 is drastically changing the levels of online political participation. <p> / Doctorat en Information et communication / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished