TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 20 July 2023 DOI 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 Political parties and their online OPEN ACCESS platforms–Dierences in EDITED BY Fabio Lupato, philosophies Complutense University of Madrid, Spain REVIEWED BY Isabelle Roth Borucki, Jasmin Fitzpatrick1*† and Gefion Thuermer2*† University of Marburg, Germany Marco Meloni, 1Department of Political Science, Johannes-Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany, 2Department University of Southampton, United Kingdom of Informatics, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom *CORRESPONDENCE Jasmin Fitzpatrick fitzpatrick@politik.uni-mainz.de As external forces seek to gain influence over ICTs of political parties, their security Gefion Thuermer becomes an additional relevant factor in parties’ finances. While many studies gefion.thuermer@kcl.ac.uk focus on parties’ online fundraising, their spending for web-based technologies †These authors have contributed equally to this remains terra incognita. Our perspective follows the idea that a party’s spending work and share first authorship is an indicator for relevance. What aspects are on the table when new ICTs are RECEIVED 03 April 2023 purchased by parties? What significance do security concerns have? We analyzed ACCEPTED 05 July 2023 PUBLISHED 20 July 2023 the Green Parties in Germany and Austria. Both are forerunners in their use of online participation platforms with decades of experience in engaging members CITATION Fitzpatrick J and Thuermer G (2023) Political o ine. We conducted interviews with stakeholders from both parties and an parties and their online platforms–Dierences external IT-specialist. Our findings indicate dierences in the approach of securing in philosophies. Front. Polit. Sci. 5:1199449. ICTs even among these most similar cases: some see security as a long-term issue doi: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 and invest in in-house solutions, others see security as a necessary expense and COPYRIGHT © 2023 Fitzpatrick and Thuermer. This is an opt for external service providers. open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License KEYWORDS (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the political parties, ICTs, security, finances, green parties original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, 1. Introduction distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. According to Eurostat, in 2021, 92% of households in Europe had access to the internet and almost 80% of respondents used the internet daily (Eurostat., 2022). The potential for political parties to reach citizens through ICTs is therefore tremendous (e.g., Chadwick and Stromer-Galley, 2016). This also poses the necessity for political parties to move where the people are: into the digital sphere. Political parties’ migration toward digital solutions is a research topic at the intersection of political science and computer sciences and looks back at 20 years of research. Among practitioners and scholars, the chances concerning exchange through ICTs and participation for a large number of people triggered hope for a renewed quality of (party) democracy (mobilization thesis). Influenced by the research on the digital divide (e.g., Van Deursen and Van Dijk, 2011; Scheerder et al., 2017) and experiences of the web’s potential to harm individuals and society, recent research also considers possible negative effects and even perils of technological advancements for democracy (e.g., Persily, 2017; Margetts, 2018; Starks, 2019). Acknowledging both, opportunities and perils, this paper examines how political parties attempt to cope with the technological advancements by taking a rare perspective: party spending. To ensure enhanced and reliable intra-party democracy and member engagement, security of platforms is an imperative to guarantee procedural integrity (see Figure 1). Accounting for security and user-friendliness involves investing in adequate digital infrastructure. By observing two European parties, we analyse the process of implementing digital infrastructure. We decided to focus on the Green Parties in Germany and Austria, because these parties have a long tradition and emphasis on member engagement and face the challenges of hybrid campaigning (offline and online; e.g., Chadwick et al., 2018) in multi-party systems with a large number of competitors. Choosing a pair comparison enables us to identify more general tendencies and at the Frontiers in Political Science 01 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 same time provide an in-depth analysis building on different and Mair’s meaningful contribution to the debate, other scholars resources. We use official data on party financing and combine put an emphasis on party funding, especially public party funding these with expert interviews from party officials and internet (e.g., Mendilow, 1992) and its effect on party systems (e.g., Müller, experts. Key aspects of our analysis concern the decision-making 1993). Although the analysis of party funding is very important to and implementation process of platform usage. This includes understand party (system) change, this just tells half of the story. budgeting, function, usability and security. We seek to understand Yet, studies that do focus on spending restrict the term to campaign which tools are used and which of these aspects are a priority. expenses (e.g., Benoit and Marsh, 2010; Johnson, 2013; Brock and Are tools developed in a targeted fashion or do they grow Jansen, 2015). How parties spend and invest their assets tells us rather naturally? how the organization (re-)builds itself. Budgeting is an intentional and planned procedure. This perspective also allows to detect key areas of parties’ structural decisions. Organizations will spend 2. Political parties’ spending: detecting their assets with the expectation to benefit from their investment. party strategy Drawing on organizational research, four elements are essential for an organization: tasks, structure, individuals and roles, as well as Parties may benefit from a sophisticated online appearance technology (Leavitt, 1965). These four elements were specified by (for an overview see Vergeer, 2013). They can attract and Leavitt in his so-called diamond model, which has been part of the integrate members through ICTs (e.g., Gibson et al., 2013; Scarrow, intersection of digital and organizational research (e.g., Wigand, 2014; Vaccari and Valeriani, 2016; for a critical perspective see 2007; Hoff and Scheele, 2014). While some authors interpret Davis, 2010), deepen intra-party democracy by moving decision- “technical” in a very modern fashion, Scott and Davis (2007), re- making and candidate selection processes online (e.g., Ceron, 2017; shape it as a “material-resource” component. This interpretation is Gerbaudo, 2019; Biancalana and Vittori, 2021) or use ICTs to interesting because it frames technology as a restrictor of structural create a positive image for the party organization by providing processes in an organization. Investments in technology therefore transparency (e.g., Nixon and Johansson, 1999). Yet, this comes shape an organizations’ structure and influence the behavior of most literally at a cost. User friendly and secure tools need to its members. be developed in order to meet parties’ demands. In addition, The success of any technological change however also depends these tools need to be implemented and maintained to harvest on the acceptance and use bymembers. Usability of digital solutions the possibilities to their full extent. What parties expect from in any organization must be considered. Usability in political digital platforms varies. While the administration of members science is often connected to e-voting (e.g., Herrnson et al., 2008), is a necessity, fundraising, deliberation and decision-making are e-governance (e.g., Huang and Benyoucef, 2014) or campaign optional. While for example parties like Podemos, the Five Star websites (e.g., Følstad et al., 2014; Mochla and Tsourvakas, 2020). Movement or the Pirates employ digital technology to an extent The routines of political parties beyond campaign season have not that led to the termDigital Party (Gerbaudo, 2019), long established been a focus in this regard. Usability can be understood as a design and large parties in many cases seem to rely on a rather slim choice that makes it comfortable for users to find information model of digitalization, often reduced to one-way communication easily in a well-structured digital environment (similarly Matera via websites or social media (Gibson and McAllister, 2015; Garcia et al., 2006). For political parties, the use of ICTs by members Lupato and Meloni, 2023). Both strategies might be suited well for has to reflect usability issues in order to be accepted as a channel the organization and its electorate. Depending on the path a party for file-sharing, communication and coordination, and intra-party chooses for its migration into the digital, the platforms need to democracy. Beyond these immediate user demands, security and be tailored in order to meet these demands. Parties have different privacy have become an issue especially in the light of cyberattacks options: either they rely on available and established platforms, on government platforms like the German Bundestag in 2015 or they develop their own, or they have someone develop solutions scandalously around the interference in election campaigns (e.g., for them. While emerging parties might be able to develop their Cambridge Analytica). These circumstances raise questions on how own solutions as they grow, established competitors might opt for parties react in their employment and design of digital platforms. purchasing software and services. This leaves traces in a party’s The research questions guiding this analysis are as follows: spending record. Although financial investments of parties provide an obvious RQ1: What digital tools do parties employ and for what? indicator for a party’s effort to migrate into the digital, to the RQ2: Who is involved in making these decisions? best of our knowledge party research exclusively focuses on RQ3: What parameters are important for decisions regarding digital fundraising, and not on digital spending (for an overview security and user-friendliness? see Fitzpatrick, 2021). This seems surprising since financial RQ4: Are usability and security equally important in these reports are publicly available in many Western democracies, and decisions? How do parties secure and design their use of ICTs? questions on details might be cleared through interviews with parties’ administration offices. This gap in research may result from the tradition of research into party income before the 3. Case design and country specific internet age. Questioning the effects of (partial) state funding info and its effects on party democracy is a key component in Katz and Mair’s (1995) cartel party thesis and the elaborate In order to answer these questions, we conduct a comparison body of research building on this school of thought (e.g., of two similar cases: the green parties in Germany (Bündnis 90/Die Hopkin, 2004; Van Biezen and Kopecký, 2014). Even before Katz Grünen) and Austria (Die Grünen). This allows for an in-depth Frontiers in Political Science 02 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 FIGURE 1 Visualization of links between party spending and the demand for security in intra-party democracy. FIGURE 2 Proportional spending by party and area (financial reports by the parties; see above). analysis respecting many aspects for each case. In addition, it intra-party democracy. The national contexts of the parties are opens the scope beyond a single-case study and allows for some similar as well: post-industrial societies with multiparty systems, more generalized interpretation of findings. However, this demands need for coalition formation in parliament, wide media landscape for a careful choice of cases (Gisselquist, 2014). We conduct a and a high internet penetration rate amongst the population. controlled comparison (George, 2019) of two very similar parties– Recent polls estimate the share of Green parties’ voters at around both are opposition parties who follow similar policy goals, are 10% for Austria and 20% Germany of the vote share (Politico., located in neighboring European countries, and were founded 2022). At the same time, there is a noticeable diversification in under similar circumstances during the 1980s. Both parties have topics covered by the green parties (see Fitzpatrick and Mayer, a strong emphasis on grassroots involvement and comprehensive 2019). The recent changes by Bündnis 90/Die Grünen to expand Frontiers in Political Science 03 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 the manifesto in areas like security can most certainly be seen as an from 2013 to 2018 [Rechnungshof Österreich, (n.d.)]. The Austrian attempt to attract voters beyond the typical crowds.With their solid reports are slightly less detailed than those for Germany (e.g., performance during election in Germany in 2021 these changes grouping of costs and totals), but allow some basic comparisons, can be regarded successful, their role in the current government indicative of where the parties focus their spending. coalition proves the sincerity of the programmatic changes. Die Using this financial data as a starting point, we conducted Grünen in Austria was the former party of President Alexander two stakeholder interviews with senior representatives of both van der Bellen, who froze his membership in order to demonstrate parties, to gain insight into the context of the numbers, and the the non-partisan character of his administration. Yet, the success considerations that are made for spending on digital platforms. in Austria and Germany demonstrates green parties’ ability to run While a larger number of interviews would have been preferred, for and gain experience in public office. Hence, these parties are there is only a very limited number of experts in parties who interesting competitors. can respond to questions like ours. We therefore supplemented All the similarities between the parties allow us to focus on the data for the German party with interviews conducted the few differences between them: They are in different countries previously (in 2018; cf. Thuermer, 2019), in a period of intense (Germany vs. Austria), have a different trajectory (increasing digital development. The interview questions and profiles of the success in Germany vs. intermittent bankruptcy and a rebuild interviewees can be found in the Appendix. based on regions in Austria), and have very different membership All interviews happened between 2018 and 2020, and were numbers (∼100,000 vs. 7,500) and therefore differently sized conducted and transcribed in German, then thematically coded budgets (48 vs. 2.5 million for 2018). in English. Coding was done inductively, identifying relevant Their emphasis on transparency and inclusiveness in decision- themes, and similarities and differences between the responses, making suggests an open attitude toward online solutions that over multiple readings. All coding was conducted by the second promise to meet these criteria, and makes them a “crucial case.” author, since consent from participants did not allow sharing the At the same time, the fear of external interference and infiltration data outside of the institution. The final codes resulting from this poses a plausible threat to political actors: external manipulation analysis are: of campaigns and votes or data theft of members’ and politicians’ identities including addresses or banking account data are only • Digital tool requirements, for discussions of what digital some examples. In the following analysis, we examine how the tools are needed, and what they need to be or do in order to green parties in Austria and Germany cope with these challenges. be useful for the party (e.g., “we had many more people using Our goal in this analysis is to identify how the parties react to these [a tool], so it was running over capacity”) challenges in their own ways, given the differences between them, • Digital tool use, for discussions of how digital tools are used especially concerning members and budgets, which we believe are in practice (e.g., “I try to create contacts with real people, to decisive factors in how they plan their activities. build a relationship to us and our brand, and I use digital tools to organize that”) • Administrative considerations, for discussions of administrative processes that enable the adoption or 4. Methods and data integration of digital tools (e.g., “these processes are co- financed, so we need to ensure that this is communicated As discussed above, it is surprising that party finances have across all financial committees”) not been a focus for research, because they are, to some degree, • Spending considerations, for discussions of aspects that were public data. Hence, we started our analysis by retrieving this considered during discussions about the costs and financing data and creating an overview of party finances for both parties. of digital tools (e.g., “we need to trust the people who thought Party expenses in Germany are reported to the administration this through and developed the tool in many regards anyway, of the Bundestag, regulated by the Political Parties Act, §24, and so we also have to trust their assessment and prioritization”) made publically available on the Bundestag website [Deutscher • Security considerations, for discussions of aspects that were Bundestag, (n.d.)]. Based on these reports, we collated data for considered during discussions about the security of digital the years 2000–2018 (the last available at the time of writing), tools (e.g., “How secure is the system? Can Edward Snowden for party income, expenditure, and the expenditure subcategories submit a proposal in my name?”) for “running business” and “general political work.” The former • Usability considerations, for discussions of end user includes regular costs for the party, such as cleaning and requirements of digital tools (e.g., “how many people can maintenance, which also includes the maintenance of IT systems, actually use the tools. It’s a question of practicability, for users such as servers. The latter includes costs that are incurred for the in the country, but also for our staff”) fulfillment of the parties’ societal role, and internal or external participation and decision-making. This would include any new The codes’ frequency of use can also be found in the developments for tools for these purposes (Lenski, 2011; paras 24, Supplementary Table 1. #5, Rn Lenski, 52-54). Since these numbers are very broad, we used To add further context, the resulting profiles of parties’ them as a starting point for interviews with the party’s treasurer. priorities were then discussed with an expert in IT security from Parties in Austria also have to submit annual financial the ChaosComputerClub. This was originally intended as an in- reports, which are published through the Court of Auditors depth expert interview. However, since the parties’ considerations (Rechnungshof). Reports available at the time of writing ranged on security were less detailed than anticipated, it was ultimately Frontiers in Political Science 04 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 used to simply provide context to the considerations we found, and “so they said, we can’t keep doing this on our own, because whether or not those were considered sufficient. the storage space requirement has exploded, and so has the workload” (Interviewee 3). This, naturally, led to an immediate need for funds. 5. Findings and discussion A similarly immediate need for funds arose when the company that hosted all party branches’ websites discontinued their services, 5.1. Party finances and the party had to find an alternative solution very quickly. Both services–the Wolke and the websites–have been taken over by a As mentioned before, both parties work with very differently cooperative, owned by the party and its subsidiary branches. sized budgets, which stem from membership fees and donations. The Austrian party does not only have much lower membership “I would even say that now is the time for our organization numbers and income, but their situation is further complicated by where digitalisation becomes serious. Everything before was their loss of votes in the 2017 national election, causing a 2 year interesting, [. . . ] but now it is serious, because suddenly the tools break in their representation in parliament, and a subsequently that are made available are decisive, instead of what happens looming bankruptcy. offline. For collaboration and to organize an election campaign, Despite differences in how much cash both parties have at their these tools are now absolutely essential” (Interviewee 3) disposal, where they spend this money proportionally does tell some part of the story: While the Austrian party spends a large For the Green Party Austria, digital tools are much more part of their funds on communication, and only a small proportion focused on outreach and campaigning, and less on internal (6% on average) on administration, the German party consistently enablement. This is partly due to the parties’ position, having spends a third of their funds on political work and administration dropped out of parliament in 2017, only to get re-elected and (see Figure 2). However, as we found during our interviews, the join a government coalition 3 years later. The interim period has financial records do not tell the whole story. had disastrous effects for the parties’ finances, and so expensive development projects are neither possible nor desired. Instead of large development projects, the party established a series of small projects under the umbrella Projekt Bienenstock (project beehive, launched 2017), where they evaluate the need 5.2. Tool requirements and use for, develop and test small solutions, to ultimately contribute to election campaigns and engagement of supporters in the future. The Green Party Germany has heavily invested into the Starting from the needs within the party, the project used personas, development and maintenance of digital tools for several years. interviews and focus groups to establish what tools would be There is a reoccurring theme in how these tools are developed: useful, and then prioritized and assigned the limited available Volunteers start to put together tools based on use-cases they see resources accordingly. It includes, amongst other digital tools, themselves; then the tools are taken up by other groups within an activist app to engage supporters. The party also collaborates the party; and ultimately the tools and their development are with the Green Party Germany, to share some of the tools that taken on by the party centrally, who will also fund their hosting were developed there. This includes a canvassing app used to and development going forward. This order of proceedings is support door-to-door efforts in election campaigns, developed for likely due to earlier attempts to develop and implement tools the Green Party Germany, who made it available to their Austrian top-down; the internal knowledge-management tool and social peers. The Austrian party is now paying for an adaptation to their network Wurzelwerk was developed externally, and the attempts local needs. Tools are developed and tested in small areas, rather to implement and gain users for it were unsuccessful, as members than nationally. were not convinced of its use, or usability (Heinrich and Spitz, 2014; In this respect, we observe a focus on tools that enable Thuermer et al., 2018). decentralized campaigning (Gibson, 2015) for the Austrian The route from volunteer development to official adoption Greens, while the German Greens centralize best practices from happened with the Antragsgrün (proposal green), an internal subordinated party entities. participation tool for the management of proposals (see also Thuermer, 2021); and most recently with the Grüne Wolke (green cloud), a cloud application to share data among members. The Wolke was developed by an association in the vicinity of the party, and quickly gained popularity and users. Ultimately, within only 5.3. IT finance decisions 6 months of active use, the tool became so successful that the association deemed it irresponsible to continue running it, as it Many of the recent financial decisions taken in the Green Party needed a more stable support and security concept, and a volunteer Germany were not premeditated, but arose from urgent necessities, association was not a suitable framework to handle either of these out of sync with the parties’ plans. Part of this urgency arose from things. At that point, the party office stepped in to ensure the tool, the need to transfer previously voluntary services into professional which had become central to campaigns and other party activities, structures, simply because these services were more successful–and could be maintained professionally: therefore necessary–than anticipated. Frontiers in Political Science 05 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 Previously, a key priority had been to establish systems that necessity to fund a process or tool that is required, not by available could be used across branches. budgets. This is partly because the viability of the tools in question is Even when investments into tools were planned, the key already established (after all, the tools are already developed and in consideration in prior years has not been cost, but usability use), and partly because there are few IT experts engaged in senior and reach, especially across the subsidiary branches who co-fund decision-making levels. This leads to sometimes naïve discussions these investments: about how IT services can be purchased, as simply going for the cheapest offer may appear to be the best option financially, but “It was important to me that multiple layers of the party would not lead to the longevity and continuity the party wants for could use these tools, so, I want to do things that the state their services: and local branches can use independently. (. . . ) I’d rather have something rustic and simple, but usable, than something “We had 60 people in this discussion, you can imagine how elaborate that only the top-level can use.” (Interviewee 2) many really had any IT expertise. And then those with expertise contribute, but those without misinterpret what they say, to This also included the development of tools that were specific mean they don’t want these things either.” (Interviewee 3) to the parties’ needs: “Better to develop solutions ourselves, than to buy custom-made solutions” (Interviewee 2). While data protection was not a key consideration for While security was one of the key considerations to fund tools these decisions, complying with the new European General Data like theGrüneWolke, it was only one of multiple reasons, alongside Protection Regulation (GDPR) was one of the motivations for continuous availability and centrality to the workflows in the party the decision to outsource tools to an external (but party-related) being equally or more important. Security was a consideration organization. The services were handed to the collaborative, before the tools were introduced, but not a major one: “My gut because the party “could not possibly use the same IT provider feeling was that, no idea, that’s the question, isn’t it, how closed off as the FDP” (Interviewee 3), and a provider based in Germany is the system against external influences?” (Interviewee 1). Security and closer to the party would be more compliant with GDPR was then one of the triggers to make an investment necessary in as well as German perceptions of data protection. The additional the first place, but in the following discussions it still only played a layer of organization (which was previously handled by a group minor role. It was perceived as achieved by virtue of taking the tool of volunteers) was deemed necessary, amongst other factors, to on internally: ensure legal compliance. This may explain some of the success a party-internal cloud app had in the first place, and why so “Questions like IT security can only be solved if you have many members are using the service. Administratively, having a little access to everything, and a general overview. (. . . ) We access to and insight into the workings of the IT provider have not developed this yet, but at least we have a basis to was deemed necessary to establish control over IT security as have realistic influence in the future. This was a starting point.” well. Security from unauthorized external access was deemed less (Interviewee 3) relevant, as none of the data shared on the Wolke was truly sensitive; it is a practical tool, not a sensitive one, and since it Other considerations, such as how exactly the maintenance is used to share things like campaign posters and best practice of the tool would be handled administratively, were much widely across the party, much of its content can be deemed more important going forward. This looked slightly different for semi-public to begin with. Therefore, there is little danger, but Antragsgrün, which is very influential in internal decision-making, also a perception of very limited interest in accessing these data. and so security took more of a central role; but even in this case, On the other hand, making investments into security specifically hosting the tool internally was seen as key to ensuring control over was seen as a waste of money, as Interviewee 3 explained: access to the tool. Usability was no consideration for either tool, “even if I pay hundreds of thousands for a provider, I can since it has already been established, and is the reason for the tools’ still get hacked.” Previous data leaks in the party, such as the success, and needs to be maintained, rather than investing in its publication of the phone numbers of their executives, had not continuous development: been due to IT security at all, and the party could not ensure that the periphery of family members or relatives adhered to any “The Antragsgrün grew from the party itself, it’s been security standards. accepted by diverse stakeholders. We continue to adapt it to our As IT security expert Alexander Bogk from the CCC points requirements, and support the development by now. (. . . ) But we out, IT security should consider not only hardware, but also use the things that are there rather than developing something people and processes, to ensure that data is kept confidential, completely new.” (Interviewee 2) available, and maintains integrity. The ideal setup for any one organization will always be based on individual requirements Financial decisions in the Green Party Germany are made and perceived threats, as well as finances. Cloud applications collaboratively between the national and state executives, which have the benefit of scalability and lower costs, but may be less is mandated by the party statutes (§19; Bündnis 90/Die Grünen., secure from (state) interference. On premise solutions (e.g., own 2020). When discussing digital tools and their financing, IT experts servers) require higher initial investment and maintenance costs, do not have much of a stake in the conversation; the focus in these but allow tighter access controls. However, both routes can be used discussions appears to be on the administration much more than securely, provided expert staff (or even volunteers) are available to on their technical or practical viability. Decisions are led by the maintain them. Frontiers in Political Science 06 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 An interesting side-note is that the need for these digital of political parties to meet the needs of security and user- tools did explicitly not arise from the elsewhere observed friendliness of ICT platforms for party purposes. While many increase in online services due to pandemic-related lockdowns. papers observe parties’ digital behavior during campaign season, On the contrary, the pandemic may have made decisions more we take a more general look at parties’ internal ICT use. In complicated than they would otherwise have been, because addition to this novelty, we evaluate parties’ spending on ICT suddenly, digital tools and discussions gained more attention from development and security as an indicator of importance and internal stakeholders, which put an internal spotlight on decisions awareness for security issues. We address four main research that would otherwise have happened without major discussions. questions: What digital tools do parties employ and for what? The need for these tools had arisen before the pandemic, and largely How do parties secure and design their use of ICTs? What to enable personal interaction, such as canvassing. parameters are important for decisions regarding security and user- In Austria, financing for the Bienenstock is granted by a friendliness? And, who is involved in making these decisions? cross-section of party leadership, campaign- and IT experts, who Especially, in terms of guaranteeing the procedural integrity of will- collectively make decisions about which projects to fund. Funds are formation and decision-making these questions addressed perils made available across the party, but primarily from the two largest and chances of web-based technologies: while a more inclusive andmost financially strong subsidiaries. The party had not invested and transparent process can increase member engagement and heavily in IT in the past, and now felt the need to catch up: the legitimacy of decisions, secure systems become a condition for digital intra-party democracy. Only a system that is safe from “We simply were not competitive in the digital arena. external influences can promote democratic procedures within (. . . ) That is why we told ourselves we needed to catch up.” a party. (Interviewee 4) Green parties prove to be a very interesting case in terms of evaluating the implementation of ICTs into communication and Digital participation is a focus for them, however, they decision-making processes. Continuing the established importance focus heavier on publicity and digital communication than on of member integration in the digital age is an imperative and engagement–which also explains the continuously low-stakes challenge at the same time. Comparing these similar cases, we investment. The long-term plan for the Bienenstock is to develop find different paths of ensuring security. Regarding the first a number of tools beneficial to the party as a whole. Some of and second question, both parties are collaborating in their these tools may be shared back with their German colleagues development of digital tools, but have different priorities. The in the future, and there is an idea to potentially establish more Austrian party focuses on tools that campaign and outreach wide-ranging European collaborations. activities, such as canvassing and engaging affiliates. The German Security, again, does not play a major role beyond the decision party on the other hand focuses on collaborative tools, allowing of where services are hosted. The party does not have the resources members to exchange data, or engage in the parties’ decision- to pay for internal experts, and so decided to use external services making processes. such as Microsoft Azure, where security is taken care of. Rather Where the German party prefers to be in control of IT than investing into security and maintaining control themselves, systems and therefore keeps them as close and internal as possible, they are treating security as a service that they pay for: the Austrian party assumes that they cannot achieve security internally, and therefore pay for everything to be hosted securely “Of course that is in the US, and yes, we cannot meet the externally. This difference to some degree reflects the differences political demand to be secure from the NSA. We aren’t. But in both parties’ resources, with the German party having access to it’s better to be part of existing security architecture as other significantly more funds. commercial providers, because that means a maximum of IT Essentially, we find two philosophies about security and user- security.” (Interviewee 4) friendliness and their achievability: The German Green Party takes up successful tools, initiated by an affiliated association outside The alternative would only be to do nothing at all, as the party of the party framework, and tested in party subsidiaries. User- does not have the resources to ensure IT security on their own, not friendliness is therefore a neglected parameter in the process: only for the initial investment and staff required, but neither for By the time a tool is adopted, the party already knows it continuous development tomaintain the current security standards works and it is worth the investment. When its popularity at all times: reaches a critical threshold, they opt for centralizing the tool and implementing it on their own servers. The affiliated association “IT experts in large companies change all the time, and and subsidiaries can be seen as a party lab, successful tools have much more resources and know-how. And even they cannot and initiatives will be centralized and afterwards enjoy party guarantee one hundred percent IT security.” (Interviewee 4) funding. The motivation for this is security concerns which are accounted for by the process of centralization. The German Greens do not outsource platforms and services. This can be 6. Conclusion seen as an artifact of the German privacy culture: Germans historically are much more suspicious when it comes to data This paper is located in the evolving sub-discipline of political protection, which may partially explain the desire of the German science integrating computer sciences’ knowledge to analyse party to keep all their data and applications close to their political parties and their evolution. We examine the efforts chest. The second philosophy represented by the Greens in Frontiers in Political Science 07 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 Austria is mainly inspired by the need to be cost efficient. Author contributions ICTs are evaluated by e.g., focus groups before development and funding or they import established apps from abroad–in this case All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and from Germany. intellectual contribution to the work and approved it Turning to the third question, both parties shared the for publication. dilemma of discussing IT security and its financing among politicians with limited understanding of the technical implications these decisions would have, and ultimately decided Funding on different solutions. In context of the pandemic, it seems surprising that the Part of this research was supported by the EPSRC Centre for increased awareness for digital solutions was said to have an Doctoral Training in Web Science Innovation, EP/L016117/1. inhibiting effect: circles not interested in the process before the COVID-19 pandemic suddenly wanted to have a say in decisions on the table, which complicated the digitalization process. It Acknowledgments seems that this virus was slowing humankind down in even the most unexpected situation. Future research in a post-COVID era We would like to thank our interviewees in the Green Parties of will have to focus on what party routines will remain online Germany and Austria, as well as IT security expert Alexander Bogk. and what routines will experience a long-term migration into We thank Sarah Kromin, Frauke Schöne, and Timo Sprang for their the digital. Depending on this development, the affordances for assistance in formatting and their comments. secure solutions will have to be re-addressed. In terms of policy development, democratic societies and their governments will Conflict of interest have to discuss whether guaranteeing secure solutions for will- formation and decision-making should be regarded a public The authors declare that the research was conducted in the duty. For scholars, the scientific supervision of these adaptation absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be processes remains a challenge-from a normative and empirical construed as a potential conflict of interest. point of view. Publisher’s note Data availability statement All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the The datasets presented in this article are not readily authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated available because interviews are subject to third party organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the restrictions. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or GT, gefion.thuermer@kcl.ac.uk. claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Ethics statement Supplementary material The study involving human participants was approved by the University of Southampton under ref #20777. Written The Supplementary Material for this article can be found informed consent was obtained from the interviewees online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2023. for participation in the research and for the publication 1199449/full#supplementary-material of any potentially identifiable images or data included in SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 1 this article. Thematic coding frequency. References Benoit, K., and Marsh, M. (2010). Incumbent and challenger campaign spending Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2020). Satzung des Bundesverbandes. Available online effects in proportional electoral systems: the Irish elections of 2002. Political Res, Quart. at: https://cms.gruene.de/uploads/documents/201218-Satzung-Bundesverband-mit- 63, 159–173. doi: 10.1177/1065912908325081 verlinktem-Inhaltsverzeichnis.pdf Biancalana, C., and Vittori, D. (2021). “Cyber-parties’ membership between Ceron, A. (2017). Intra-party politics in 140 characters. Party Politics 23, 7–17. empowerment and pseudo-participation: the cases of podemos and the five star doi: 10.1177/1354068816654325 movement.” in Digital Parties, eds O. Barberà, G. Sandri, P. Correa, and J. Rodríguez- Chadwick, A., and Stromer-Galley, J. (2016). Digital media, power, Teruel. (Cham: Springer), 109–126. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_6 and democracy in parties and election campaigns: party decline or party Brock, D. M., and Jansen, H. J. (2015). Raising, spending, and regulating party renewal? Int. J. Press/Politics 21, 283–293. doi: 10.1177/19401612166 finances in the provinces. Can. Pol. Sci. Rev. 9, 55–74. 46731 Frontiers in Political Science 08 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 Chadwick, A., Vaccari, C., and O’Loughlin, B. (2018). Do tabloids poison the well of Leavitt, H. J. (1965). “Applied organisational change in industry: Structural, social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing. New Media Soc. technological and humanistic approaches”. in Handbook of Organisations, eds J. G. 20, 4255–4274. doi: 10.1177/1461444818769689 March (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company), 1144–1170. Davis, A. (2010). Newmedia and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation. Lenski, S. C. (2011). Parteiengesetz und Recht der Kandidatenaufstellung: New Media Soc. 12, 745–761. doi: 10.1177/1461444809341435 Handkommentar. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Deutscher Bundestag. (n.d.). Fundstellenverzeichnis der Rechenschaftsberichte. Margetts, H. (2018). Rethinking democracy with social media. Polit. Q. 90, 107–123. Deutscher Bundestag. Available online at: https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/ doi: 10.1111/1467-923X.12574 praesidium/parteienfinanzierung/rechenschaftsberichte/rechenschaftsberichte- Matera, M., Rizzo, F., and Carughi, G. T. (2006). “Web usability: principles and 202446 (accessed June 25, 2021). evaluation methods”. in Web engineering, eds E. Mendes, and N. Mosley (Berlin; Eurostat. (2022). Digital Economy and Society Statistics - Households and Heidelberg: Springer), 143–180. doi: 10.1007/3-540-28218-1_5 Individuals. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ Mendilow, J. (1992). Public party funding and party transformation in multiparty index.php?title=Digital_economy_and_society_statistics_-_households_and_ systems. Comp. Polit. Stud. 25, 90–117. doi: 10.1177/0010414092025001004 individuals#Internet_usage Mochla, V., and Tsourvakas, G. (2020). Quality dimensions of political parties’ Fitzpatrick, J. (2021). “The five-pillar-model of parties’ migration into the digital.” in website services that satisfy voters in the political marketing. J. Polit. Market. 22, 1–13. Digital Parties, eds. O. Barberà, G. Sandri, P. Correa, and J. Rodríguez-Teruel (Cham: doi: 10.1080/15377857.2020.1790470 Springer), 23–42. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_2 Müller, W. C. (1993). The relevance of the state for party system change. J. Theor. Fitzpatrick, J., and Mayer, S. J. (2019). Mehr als immer nur dagegen - Die legislative Politics 5, 419–454. doi: 10.1177/0951692893005004001 Agenda grüner Parteien in Deutschland und Österreich in Zeiten Großer Koalitionen. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 52, 95–107. doi: 10.5771/0340-1758-2021-1-95 Nixon, P., and Johansson, H. (1999). “Transparency through technology: the internet and political parties”. in Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in Følstad, A., Johannessen, M. R., and Lüders, M. (2014). “The role of a political the Information Age, eds H. N. Barry, and B. D. Loader (London: Routledge), 135–153. party website: Lessons learnt from the user perspective.” in Electronic Participation, eds E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh and F. Bannister (Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer), 52–63. Persily, N. (2017). The 2016 US election: can democracy survive the internet? J. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44914-1_5 Democr. 28, 63–76. doi: 10.1353/jod.2017.0025 Garcia Lupato, F., and Meloni, M. (2023). Digital intra-party democracy: an Politico. (2022). Poll of Polls. Available online at: https://www.politico.eu/europe- exploratory analysis of podemos and the labour party. Parliam. Aff. 76, 22–42. poll-of-polls/ doi: 10.1093/pa/gsab015 Rechnungshof Österreich. (n.d.). Rechenschaftsberichte. Rechnungshof Österreich. George, A. L. (2019). “Case studies and theory development: the method of Available online at: https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/was-wir-tun/was-wir- structured, focused comparison” in Alexander L. George: A Pioneer in Political and tun_5/was-wir-tun_6/Kontrolle_der_Parteien.html (accessed June 25, 2021). Social Sciences: With a Foreword by Dan Caldwell, ed D. Caldwell (Cham: Springer Scarrow, S. (2014). Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches International Publishing), 191–214. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-90772-7_10 to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gerbaudo, P. (2019). The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661862.001.0001 Democracy. London: Pluto Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv86dg2g Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., and van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of internet Gibson, R. K. (2015). Party change, social media and the rise of ‘citizen- skills, uses and outcomes. a systematic review of the second-and third-level digital initiated’campaigning. Party Politics 21, 183–197. doi: 10.1177/1354068812472575 divide. Telemat. Inform. 34, 1607–1624. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007 Gibson, R. K., Gillan, K., Greffet, F., Lee, B. J., and Ward, S. (2013). Party Scott, W. R., and Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, organizational change and ICTs: the growth of a virtual grassroots? New Media Soc. Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. Pearson: Prentice Hall. 15, 31–51. doi: 10.1177/1461444812457329 Starks, M. (2019). The digital democratic dividend. J. Digit. Media Policy 10, 19–26. Gibson, R. K., and McAllister, I. (2015). Normalising or equalising party doi: 10.1386/jdmp.10.1.19_1 competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Polit. Stud. Thuermer, G. (2019). “Challenges of online participation: digital inequality in party- 63, 529–547. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12107 internal processes,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Weizenbaum Conference (Berlin), 8–17. Gisselquist, R. M. (2014). Paired comparison and theory development: Thuermer, G. (2021). “Is there such a thing as a web-native party? use and role considerations for case selection. Polit. Sci. Politics 47, 477–484. of online participation tools in the green and pirate parties in Germany,” in Digital doi: 10.1017/S1049096514000419 Parties, edsO. Barberà, G. Sandri, P. Correa, and J. Rodríguez-Teruel (Cham: Springer), Heinrich, R., and Spitz, M. (2014). “Relevanz gewinnt – online-partizipation im 227–244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78668-7_12 wahlkampf bei den grünen.” in Internet und Partizipation, eds K. Voss (Wiesbaden: Thuermer, G., Roth, S., O’Hara, K., and Staab, S. (2018). “Everybody thinks online Springer Fachmedien), 223–236. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-01028-7_12 participation is great – for somebody else,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference Herrnson, P. S., Niemi, R. G., Hanmer, M. J., Francia, P. L., Bederson, B. B., Conrad, on Web Science. eds H. Akkermans, K. Fontaine and I. Vermeulen (New York, NY: F. G., et al. (2008). Voters’ evaluations of electronic voting systems: results from a Association for Computing Machinery), 287–296. doi: 10.1145/3201064.3201069 usability field study. Am. Polit. Res. 36, 580–611. doi: 10.1177/1532673X08316667 Vaccari, C., and Valeriani, A. (2016). Party campaigners or citizen campaigners? Hoff, J., and Scheele, C. E. (2014). Theoretical approaches to digital services and how social media deepen and broaden party-related engagement. Int. J. Press/Politics digital democracy: The merits of the contextual new medium theory model. Policy 21, 294–312. doi: 10.1177/1940161216642152 Internet 6, 241–267. doi: 10.1002/1944-2866.POI368 Van Biezen, I., and Kopecký, P. (2014). The cartel party and the state: Hopkin, J. (2004). The problem with party finance: theoretical perspectives on the party–state linkages in European democracies. Party Politics 20, 170–182. funding of party politics. Party Politics 10, 627–651. doi: 10.1177/1354068804046911 doi: 10.1177/1354068813519961 Huang, Z., and Benyoucef, M. (2014). Usability and credibility of e-government Van Deursen, A., and Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New websites. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 584–595. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.002 Media Soc. 13, 893–911. doi: 10.1177/1461444810386774 Johnson, J. W. (2013). Campaign spending in proportional electoral systems: Vergeer, M. (2013). Politics, elections and online campaigning: past, present... and incumbents versus challengers revisited. Comp. Polit. Stud. 46, 968–993. a peek into the future. New Media Soc. 15, 9–17. doi: 10.1177/1461444812457327 doi: 10.1177/0010414012463889 Wigand, D. (2007). “Building on Leavitt’s diamond model of organizations: the Katz, R. S., and Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization organizational interaction diamond model and the impact of information technology and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party. Party Polit. 1, 5–28. on structure, people, and tasks,” in Proceedings of the Americas Conference on doi: 10.1177/1354068895001001001 Information Systems, 1259–1267. Frontiers in Political Science 09 frontiersin.org Fitzpatrick and Thuermer 10.3389/fpos.2023.1199449 Appendix 3. How are costs allocated to budgets? 4. For what specifically were payments made? Were funds spent Annex: interview details on specific platforms? Questions 5. Are solutions developed specifically for the party, or Interviews 1 and 2 were conducted during PhD research of the do you buy solutions that are already available on second author, and covered the relevant topics as part of questions the market? concerning the implementation of online participation processes: 6. Does staff receive specific training, or do they learn on the job? 7. Are costs redistributed from the national to regional 1. What is your opinion of these participation processes? branches? 2. Which opportunities arise through them? 8. What role does IT security play in your financial decisions? 3. Which problems are related to these processes? 9. Did you spend any funds on software for cybersecurity? 4. Are you actively using these processes, or planning on doing 10. Is cybersecurity a relevant aspects for licenses you purchase so? (e.g., windows updates)? 5. In your opinion, how do these processes align with the Green 11. What motivates the decisions about the use of specific IT Party ideal of democracy? solutions? 6. What is your role in the implementation of these processes? 7. Which criteria are important to you when implementing the Interviewee profiles processes? Interviewee 1 is a man in his sixties. He lives in a rural area in 8. How does this show in what happens during the Western Germany and is a parent. He holds a position at national implementation? level in the Green Party Germany. Interviewee 2 is a man in his forties. He lives in Berlin and Interviews 3 and 4 were conducted specifically for this paper, and is a parent. He holds a position at national level in the Green covered the below questions: Party Germany. Interviewee 3 is a man in his forties. He lives in Berlin and is a parent. He holds a position at national level in the Green 1. How and where does the party make decisions about IT Party Germany. expenses? Interviewee 4 is a man in his thirties. He lives in 2. How much does the party spend on IT, and how has this Linz and holds a regional position in the Green changed over the last five years? Party Austria. Frontiers in Political Science 10 frontiersin.org