ABSTRACT
Current international political events show social media representing a great opportunity to mobilize populations. Research on protest sentiments plays a significant role in mobilization studies. Nowadays it is also particularly important to refer to communicative mobilization strategies in the digital environment. Digital communicative mobilization strategies become even more relevant during a pandemic. However, the question of how exactly social media impact the offline mobilization process still stays under discussion. For example, government measures against the spread of coronavirus infection in Russia have sparked a wave of discussion on social media. Do these discussions have mobilization potential? To answer this question, the paper analyses content from the Russian social network site VKontakte. The study analyzed a total of 503 posts from 8 social media groups devoted to anti-vaccination topics. The peculiarity of analysis is in the work of algorithms on social network sites. Algorithms ban information on specified subjects and authors are forced to look for ways to cheat the algorithms. Several ways of escaping the ban were discovered. One is to cover more topics than just vaccination for coronavirus. Another is using modifications of search words. In the author's opinion, this observation could be significant for further protest discourse research in social media. The study is aimed to determine whether the information from these accounts is mobilizing. The results show that the analyzed content cannot be considered as mobilizing, due to the lack of several key characteristics. Mobilization content must contain a symbol. The basis of the mobilizing symbol is integrity, unity of communicative message, and comprehensibility. The symbol is usually represented by regularly repetitive patterns. No such patterns were found in the sample. Detected patterns are more akin to social advertising. Also, a mobilizing call for action should be free of negative connotations. Nevertheless, the study concludes that explored content can become a mobilizing one if certain aspects are considered. © 2022 IEEE.
ABSTRACT
What is a democracy? Why do we form democratic systems? Can democracy survive in an age of distrust and polarisation? The Psychology of Democracy explains the psychological underpinnings behind why people engage with and participate in politics. Covering the influence that political campaigns and media play, the book analyses topical and real-world political events including the Arab Spring, Brexit, Black Lives Matter, the US 2020 elections and the Covid-19 pandemic. Lilleker and Ozgul take the reader on a journey to explore the cognitive processes at play when engaging with a political news item all the way through to taking to the streets to protest government policy and action. In an age of post-truth and populism, The Psychology of Democracy shows us how a strong and healthy democracy depends upon the feelings and emotions of its citizens, including trust, belonging, empowerment and representation, as much as on electoral processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic in Malawi emerged amidst widespread anti-government demonstrations and subsequent mass gatherings. This paper describes the incidence and factors associated with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malawi. METHODOLOGY: This was a retrospective study of public data analysing geopolitical and immigration activities that occurred between 02 April and 08 September 2020. The Chi-square test of independence was used to tabulate sex and age-related fatality ratios among deaths due to COVID-19-related complications. RESULTS: The drivers for COVID-19 spread were mass gatherings secondary to the country's political landscape and repatriation of citizens from high-risk areas coupled with minimum use of public health interventions. The prevalence was higher in people aged 50-59 years, males and in urban areas. Men had an increased risk of COVID-19-related deaths (Case Fatality Ratio: 1.58 (95% CI 1.11-2.22) compared with women. Furthermore, men and women aged ≥40 years were 16.1 times and 7.1 times more likely to die of COVID-related complications, respectively. Men aged ≥40 years had a 62% increased risk of deaths compared with women of the same age group. CONCLUSION: Mass political gatherings and cross-border immigration from high-risk areas were drivers for infection. Males, older age and urban residence were associated with increased COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. To control the spread of COVID-19 there is a need to regulate mass gatherings and repatriation of citizens, and strengthen the use of preventive health interventions. Men, the older age groups and urban areas should be prioritised for COVID-19 prevention strategies.