Nayib Bukele, the coolest president on Twitter or the new millennial populist?
Abstract
During June 2019, and six days after the beginning of his term, Nayib Bukele, the youngest politician (37 years old) to assume the Presidency of El Salvador, proclaimed himself on Twitter “the coolest president in the world”. As soon as this, he unleashed a commotion on social media over his light-hearted way of addressing his audience. This strategy has generated attention and popularity. Several times it has become a trending topic and, during his first seven days in office, he gained 90,000 new followers, bringing him closer to the first million. However, his attitude in networks is not always conciliatory and he begins to speak of a millennial populism. This work analyzes the behavior of the @nayibbukele account, from a communicational point of view, through a model of 16 indicators and 70 sub-indicators, corresponding to the classic dimensions of a Communication study: who (Activity), says what (Content) , to whom (Conversation and Popularity), on what channel (Twitter) and with what effects (Influence).
Downloads
References
Arditi, B. (2010). Arguments about the left: A post-liberal politics? In C. A. Maxwell & E.
Block, E., y Negrine, R. (2017). The populist communication style: Toward a critical framework. Interna-tional Journal of Communication, 11(20). Recuperado de http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5820
Bos, L., y Brants, K. (2014). Populist rhetoric in politics and media: A longitudinal study of the Nether-lands. European Journal of Communication, 29(6), pp. 703–719.
Burson-Marsteller. (2017). Twiplomacy. Recuperado de http://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2017/.
Caldevilla, D. (2009). Democracia 2.0: La política se introduce en las redes sociales. Pensar La Publicidad, 3, 31–48.
Castells, M. (2009). Comunicación y Poder. Madrid, España: Alianza Editorial.
Coronel, G. y Mier, A. (2011). Impacto de Twitter en Ecuador, Caso 30S. Trabajo presentado en Memoria 2011 Conferencia Iberoamericana en Sistemas, Cibernética e Informática: CISCI 2011. Loja, Ecua-dor. Recuperado de http://www.iiis.org/CDs2011/CD2011CSC/CISCI_2011/PapersPdf/CA806GT.pdf.
De la Torre, C. (Ed.). (2015). The promise and perils of populism: Global perspectives. Lexington, KY: Uni-versity of Kentucky Press.
Deacon, D., y Wring, D. (2016). The UK Independence Party, populism and the British news media: Com-petition, collaboration or containment? European Journal of Communication, 31(2), pp. 169–184.
Deltell, L., Congosto, M., Claes, F. y Osteso, J. (2013). Identificación y análisis de los líderes de opinión en Twitter en torno a Hugo Chávez. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 13(68), 696–718, https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2013-997.
El Hamdouni, Y. (2013). Internet y la primavera árabe: hacia una nueva percepción del ciberespacio. Paix et Sécurité Internationales: Revue Maroco-Espagnole de Droit International et Relations Internatio-nales, (1), 167–173.
Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F., y Büchel, F. (2016). Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), pp. 1109–1126.
Enli, G. (2017). Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. European Journal of Communication, 32(1), pp. 50–61.
Fuchs, C. y Sandoval, M. (2014). Introduction: Critique, Social Media and the Information Society in the Age of Capitalist Crisis. En Critique, Social Media and the Information Society (1 - 47). Inglaterra: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203764077.
Fumero y Rodríguez. (2006). Más allá de la Administración Electrónica, hacia un Gobierno de Nueva Ge-neración. Gobernanza 2.0. Análisis local, 67(IV), 5 - 18.
García Jurado, R. (2012). Sobre el concepto de populismo. Estudios 103 (10), pp. 7-32.
Girón, G. y Marroquín, M. (2019). #UnaCampañaQueHizoHistoria. En W. Carballo. (Ed.), Nuevos e-scenarios comunicación digital. Investigaciones sobre comunicación digital en El Salvador, 3, 243 (pp. 13-61). Recuperado de http://monicaherrera.edu.sv/investigacion-docs/investigacion-institucional/Monica-Herrera-Investigacion-Nuevos-Escenarios-Comunicacion-Digi-tal.pdf.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1bk2beY3naPURRRM38Bwhwnv3dbh39x2eI3pNgRfjS_CpIDVbzx44YqcM
Gladwell, M. (2011). A small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. Revista De Occidente, (362–363), 139–154.
Gutiérrez-Rubí, A. (2014). Tecnopolítica. El uso y la concepción de las nuevas herramientas tecnológicas para la comunicación, la organización y la acción política colectivas. Barcelona, España: Grafiko.
Gutíérrez-Rubí, A. (2016) Telefónica. Millennials en Latinoamérica. Una perspectiva desde Ecuador. Bar-celona, Españla: Ariel. Recuperado de https://fundaciontelefonica.com.ec/millennialsec/?fbclid=IwAR0vZA2j4Yte0Bih2j1wVE5dhjwR0d017OawRy4S0c7wnmFUUJff92J8nJo
Habermas, J. (1994). Historia y crítica de la opinión pública: la transformación estructural de la vida públi-ca. Barcelona, España: Gustavo Gili.Hameleers, M., & Schmuck, D. (2017). It’s us against them: A comparative experiment on the effects of populist messages communicated via social media. In-formation, Communication & Society, 20(9), pp. 1425–1444.
Hershberg (Eds.). Latin America’s left turn: Politics, policies, and trajectories of change. (pp. 145–170). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Jones, V. (2017). Trump: The Social Media President? Recuperado de http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/jones-trump-social-media/index.html
Kellner, D. (2017). American nightmare: Donald Trump, media spectacle, and authoritarian populism. Rot-terdam: Sense Publishers.
Krämer, B. (2017). Populist online practices: the function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Infor-mation, Communication & Society, 20(9), pp. 1293-1309.
Laclau, E. (2005). Populism: What’s in a Name. Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, 48.
Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. En L. Bryson, (ed.) The Communication of Ideas, (pp.37–52). New York, New York, Estados Unidos Recuperado de http://www.dhpescu.org/media/elip/The structure and function of.pdf
Lee, K. (2014). The Social Media Frequency Guide: How Often To Post To Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, And More. Recuperado de https://www.fastcompany.com/3029019/the-social- media-frequency-guide-how-often-to-post-to-facebook-twitter-linkedin-a.
Llorente y Cuenca. (2014). Análisis de las dimensiones reputacionales de los presidentes de latinoaméri-ca. Recuperado de https://www.developing-ideas.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/01/140331_dmasi_Estudio_Presidentes_Latam.pdf.
Márquez, I. (2017). ¿Existe una esfera pública digital? Una reflexión crítica. En A. Navas (Comp.), Redes sociales, ciudadanía y política. Claves de la nueva esfera pública (pp. 127- 142). Guatemala: Grafía Etc. Recuperado de https://www.albertinanavas.com/publicaciones.
Mazzoleni, G. (2008). Populism and the media. In D. Albertazzi & D. McDonnell (Eds.),
Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. Stanford University Press.
Moffitt, B. (2019). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation.
Morozov, E. (2012). El desengaño de Internet: los mitos de la libertad en la red. Barcelona, España: Desti-no.
Müller, J. W. (2014). The people must be extracted from within the people: Reflections on Populism. Constellations, 21(4), pp. 483–493.
Navas, A. (Comp.). (2017) Redes sociales, ciudadanía y política. Claves de la nueva esfera pública. Guate-mala: Grafía Etc. Recuperado de https://www.albertinanavas.com/publicaciones.
Navas, A. (2018). Modelo de variables de desempeño e impacto en Twitter. Un análisis comunicacional (tesis doctoral). Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, España. Recuperado de https://www.academia.edu/38034265/11Tesis_global_nov2018_AN.pdf .
Nielsen, J. (2006). The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities. Recuperado de https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/.
Orihuela, J. (2012). Mundo Twitter: una guía para comprender y dominar la plataforma que cambió la red. Barcelona, España: Alienta Editorial.
Ortiz Leroux, S. (2006). Deliberando sobre la democracia deliberativa. Los dilemas de la deliberación pú-blica. Acta Republicana, Política y Sociedad, (5), 53–64.
Ricaurte. C. (2017). Capítulo II: Tuitómetro, la batalla en 140 caracteres. En. A. Navas. Comp.). Redes so-ciales, ciudadanía y política. Claves de la nueva esfera pública. Guatemala: Grafía Etc. Recuperado de https://www.albertinanavas.com/publicaciones.
Schneider, P. (2011). Is the 90-9-1 Rule for Online Community Engagement Dead? Recuperado de http://blog.socious.com/bid/40350/Is-the-90-9-1-Rule-for-Online-Community-Engagement-Dead-Data.
Subirats, J. (2011). Otra sociedad, ¿otra política?: De “no nos representan” a la democracia común. Barce-lona, España: Icaria Editorial. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Tascón, M. y Quintana, Y. (2012). Ciberactivismo: las nuevas revoluciones de las mulititudes conectadas (277–279). Madrid, España: Los libros de La Catarata.
Thompson, J. B. (2011). Los límites cambiantes de la vida pública y la privada. Comunicación y Sociedad, (15), 11–42.
Waisbord, S. (2013). Media policies and the blindspots of media globalization: Insights from Latin Ameri-ca. Media, Culture and Society, 35(1), 132–138, https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712464567
Waisbord, S. (2018). Why populism is troubling for democratic communication. Communication Culture & Critique, 11(1), 21-34
Whittingham, T. (2014). Social Politics. Sidney, Australia: Learning with Media.
Wilson, J. (2011). Playing with politics: Political fans and Twitter faking in post-broadcast democracy. Convergence, 17(4), 445–461. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856511414348
Wong, J. (6 de junio de 2016). El presidente MAS COOL del mundo. YouTube. Recuperado de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqe7vrs82Xs&t=16s.
Copyright (c) 2020 Albertina Navas, Dra. (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have publications with this journal, accept the following terms:
a. Authors will retain their copyrights and guarantee the journal the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA Recognition License). 4.0) that allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication are indicated in this journal.
Under this open access license, readers (users) can:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
NonCommercial — Users may not use the material for commercial purposes.
-
ShareAlike — If remix, transform, or build upon the material, users must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — Users may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the version of the published work (eg: deposit it in an institutional telematic archive or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
c. Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through the Internet (e.g. in institutional telematic files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can lead to interesting exchanges and increase citations of the published work. (See The effects of open access).
