An initial period of general indifference. Then, suddenly, an acceleration until the quorum was reached. The trajectory of the sacrosanct referendum on citizenship is not only a story with a happy ending of participation on a topic that politics seems not to see. It also allows for a very interesting analysis of the role of social media as a mechanism for political proposals, beyond the fears of misinformation and rigged elections.

How Political Participation Works on Social Media

It was seen, in part, with Gaza and the viral image All Eyes on Rafah but not only: social media can be a platform for political activism. They can build interest around a topic, break a certain general wall of indifference. Of course, we need identity themes, heartfelt ones, through which the average user is able to build his digital identity around an issue he perceives as important.

This is what happened with the referendum: at a certain point, even through some very influential profiles, the news of the need to reach the quorum spread on the platforms. From here, share after share, the growth was very rapid: in less than a week, the quota of signatures was reached.

It was a virtuous circle, not new to the way platforms work. At a certain point, something entered the bubbles of an ever-increasing number of people, a piece of information. That information generated a reaction: it activated, more and more, a desire to participate, to share. Of course, there is a component of homologation, but for social change to occur we can often just choose to participate. That information, that invitation to contribute, spread more and more. And in this case, the now famous Meta limitation on political content was of little use: the stories, the posts, of an ever-increasing number of people (influential or not) were filled with content on the referendum.

Convert interest

The process is quite common: we often see it with trends, places to visit, a new product to buy. This time, however, there was something more: the immediate possibility of converting that interest into a political action. It is no coincidence that everything worked so well with the possibility of signing online, with the SPID. There was no dispersion of information: a few clicks (without friction, they would say in Silicon Valley) and the entire participation process is closed. It was one of the most used phrases, in the communication of the referendum: it takes a few seconds, it is fast, it is easy.

This is, perhaps, the real issue of political participation in the age of social media: the conversion of a political process is not always so immediate. All Eyes on Rafah, in this sense, can be an example. I participate, I get involved, I spread the information and then I remain a bit still, without knowing exactly how to move forward, helpless, lost in processes that I do not fully understand, on which I feel I cannot have a voice. The feeling, in short, is that social media can work as a vehicle for change, but that much depends on the landing point, which is better if it is immediate, easily reachable.

It is also the story of a chronic distance: that between the issues that people actually talk about in the spaces they frequent (social media) and a part of politics. We know, fewer and fewer people identify with traditional parties, but it is not only because they are indifferent; it is also because they often appear distant from the issues that are perceived as truly important.

It seems to me that the political challenge of the near future is precisely to understand how to build spaces and moments of aggregation around this participation, starting from an interest that – even if conditioned by some technical issues – it would really be a shame to waste.