Facebook Dispute Concerning the Presidency

Case Study: Romania, 2012
  • Monica PătruţEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 13)


Facebook has proved to be an efficient means of political communication between citizens and politicians. On this virtual stage, political actors display their competence, consolidate their fame, mobilize their volunteers and attack their political opponents, encourage donations and debate some sensitive issues of the society. Citizens have the chance to get informed, to organize and to mobilize themselves for different causes or candidates, to participate in different events or elections campaigns. Our study will analyze the use of Facebook during the campaign for the impeachment referendum (July 29, 2012). The analysis will focus on the posts made both by the pro-Băsescu citizens and by those that are against him. The research questions addressed will focus on: (a) the types of information posted by both opposite groups; (b) the degree in which the Facebook accounts are used for acclaims, attacks, or defenses; (c) the time span during the campaign in which” the dialogue” between the two groups gets more intense; (d) the degree of interactivity between those who post the information and their” friends”. The research methods are functional analysis and content analysis. The two opposing groups sent their messages by the use of photographic images, verbal texts and advertising images. They used more attacks than acclaims, and had an intense activity during the middle and the end of the campaign. Their Facebook pages were interactive allowing the posting of appreciations, comments and the distribution of the materials posted.


Political communication Social media Referendum 2012 Traian Băsescu 


  1. Andrei, C. (2012). Cele şapte motive ale suspendării preşedintelui Traian Băsescu. Ce conţine documentul USL. Available at Accessed 15 Jan 2013.
  2. Babbie, E. (2010). Practica cercetării sociale. Iaşi: Polirom.Google Scholar
  3. Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign ‘96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  4. Boşoteanu, I. C. (2011). New media in alegerile prezidenţiale din 2009. Sfera Politicii, 8(162), 47–56. Available at Accessed 7 Jan 2013.
  5. Ciocotişan, F. (2011). Cine este cel mai tare politician de pe Facebook? Available at Accessed 15 Jan 2013.
  6. Cmeciu, C. M., & Pătruţ, M. (2012). Visual framing of intertexts in political reversing mirror websites. Cultural Perspectives—Journal for Literary and British Cultural Studies in Romania, 1(17), 45–63.Google Scholar
  7. Cozma, R., & Chen, K. J. (2011). Congressional candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 Midterm Elections: A wasted opportunity? Lucrare prezentată la. International Communication Association Annual Conference, Boston. Available at Accessed 17 Jan 2013.
  8. Dalsgaard, S. (2008). Facework on Facebook. The presentation of self in virtual life and its role in the US elections. Anthropology Today, 24(6), 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dinu, C. (2012). Referendum 2012. Rezultate finale Biroul Electoral Central. Available at Accessed 20 Jan 2013.
  10. Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 608–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Momoc, A. (2010). Online negative campaign in the 2004 Romanian presidential elections. Styles of Communication, 2(1), 89–99. Available at Accessed 19 Jan 2013.
  12. Momoc, A. (2011). Candidaţii populişti şi noile tehnologii (Blog, Facebook, YouTube) în alegerile prezidenţiale din 2009. Sfera Politicii, 8(162), 39–46. Available at Accessed 15 January 2013.
  13. O’Neill, N. (2008). The Facebook election results. Available at Accessed 20 Jan 2013.
  14. Pătruţ, M. (2013). Pro şi contra suspendării preşedintelui. Referendum pe Facebook. Sociologia Românească, 1, 29–39.Google Scholar
  15. Pătruţ, M., & Cmeciu, C. (2010). Dezbaterile electorale—un joc discursiv ritualic. Sfera politicii, 3(145), 57–63. Available at Accessed 10 Jan 2013.
  16. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sweetser, K. D., & Lariscy, R. W. (2008). Candidates make good friends: An analysis candidates’ uses of Facebook. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 2(3), 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tapscott, D. (2011). Crescuţi digital: Generaţia net îţi schimbă lumea. Bucureşti: Publica.Google Scholar
  19. Tedesco, J. C. (2007). Examining internet interactivity effects on young adult political information efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Toader, F. (2009). Barack Obama—noua „faţă” a politicii americane. In T. Sălcudeanu, P. Aparaschivei, & F. Toader (Eds.), Bloguri, Facebook şi politică. Bucureşti: Tritonic.Google Scholar
  21. Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., et al. (2011). It’s Complicated: Facebook users’ political participation in the 2008 election. CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(3), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Westling, M. (2007). Expanding the public sphere. The impact of Facebook on political communication. Available at Accessed 15 Jan 2011.
  23. Zhang, Y., Tang, L. S., & Leung, L. (2011). Gratifications, collective self-esteem, online emotional openness, and traitlike communication apprehension as predictors of Facebook uses. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication, Faculty of LettersVasile Alecsandri University of BacăuBacauRomania

Personalised recommendations