The New Kids on the Block: Cyberpolitics and the Emergence of New Latin American Parties (2000–2024)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an interesting contribution that bridges knowledge and concepts from political science with those originating from the field of communications. This is likely the weak point of the approach, particularly considering that the proposal has been submitted to a journal specialised in journalism and communications. To address this shortcoming, the following changes are recommended.

Introduction. The argument lacks sufficient grounding. Several points and interpretations are presented without backing from relevant references or sources, particularly concerning elections in Latin America, their outcomes, and trends in cyberpolitics. The article would also benefit from a sharper focus on its core theme, avoiding unnecessary tangents. For example, while the mentions of Canalmanía and Viola Babock are intriguing, they feel disconnected from the main discussion. When it comes to micro-segmentation and micro-targeting, though these concepts are well-referenced, the examples provided are drawn predominantly from the Global North, overlooking comparative studies on electoral campaigns and social media in Latin and Ibero American countries, which include multiple case studies (Chile, México, Spain). In the section titled “Latin America: With or without parties?”, the coverage of countries and case studies is inconsistent and needs to be rebalanced. Additionally, terms like "cyberpolitics", “technological innovation”, "technological change" and “technology evolution” are used too loosely, without acknowledging the debates or nuances surrounding them. The authors should clarify their usage and provide more precise definitions.

Methods. I recommend revising this section to align it with the changes made in the introduction.

Conclusions. Finally, regarding the concept of the digital party -the new kids if I have understood correctly - which is introduced without a prior definition, I suggest consulting Paolo Gerbaudo’s book for this purpose.

Author Response

Comment 1: "Introduction. The argument lacks sufficient grounding. Several points and interpretations are presented without backing from relevant references or sources, particularly concerning elections in Latin America, their outcomes, and trends in cyberpolitics. The article would also benefit from a sharper focus on its core theme, avoiding unnecessary tangents. For example, while the mentions of Canalmanía and Viola Babock are intriguing, they feel disconnected from the main discussion. When it comes to micro-segmentation and micro-targeting, though these concepts are well-referenced, the examples provided are drawn predominantly from the Global North, overlooking comparative studies on electoral campaigns and social media in Latin and Ibero American countries, which include multiple case studies (Chile, México, Spain). In the section titled “Latin America: With or without parties?”, the coverage of countries and case studies is inconsistent and needs to be rebalanced. Additionally, terms like "cyberpolitics", “technological innovation”, "technological change" and “technology evolution” are used too loosely, without acknowledging the debates or nuances surrounding them. The authors should clarify their usage and provide more precise definitions.

Response 1: The introduction has been refined with relevant references and a sharper focus on the central theme, eliminating unnecessary tangents. I incorporated regional examples of micro-segmentation and clarified the key term “cyberpolitics.” This last improvement, in particular, addresses a significant flaw in my initial version.

Comment 2:"Methods. I recommend revising this section to align it with the changes made in the introduction".

Response 2: Methods were expanded to ensure consistency across cases and align with the revised introduction. Also research question ere reformulated

Comment 3: Conclusions. Finally, regarding the concept of the digital party -the new kids if I have understood correctly - which is introduced without a prior definition, I suggest consulting Paolo Gerbaudo’s book for this purpose.

Response 3: I greatly appreciate your suggestion to include Gerbaudo’s references. Having worked on this topic for some time, I’m embarrassed to admit I hadn’t read his work earlier. His contributions are substantial and have been incorporated into this revised version, appearing in both the literature review and the discussion and conclusion sections. In the Results and Discussion sections, this draft now offers balanced coverage of countries, integrating examples and a definition of digital parties based on Paolo Gerbaudo’s framework. The conclusion has also been strengthened to reflect this revised focus and to incorporate a broader regional perspective.

Overall,  thanks to your observations, I think that this paper is now clearer and more focused, and it has a sharper regional emphasis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have now read the article "THE NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK, Cyberpolitics and the emergence of new Latin American parties (2000-2024)." I do not believe this piece is ready for publication. The article suggests technological changes have contributed to the rise of multiple new parties in Latin America, along with discussing political outsiders. However, with the evidence and arguments presented in the article I am not persuaded. I will lay out my concerns here.

First, the author(s) do not define what they mean by cyberpolitics. This lack of conceptual clarity runs throughout the article and makes it difficult to assess whether the results of the study are valid and add to the definition. Please define it clearly and how you operationalize it.

Similarly, the introductory conceptual framework is difficult to read through. It is not organized chronologically or in any other useful way. 

Second, and a major issue, the research questions as written are very simple yes/no questions. Further they do not align with the concept of cyberpolitics as the author suggests they should in the title, abstract and introduction. For example, the author writes: 

Have technological changes been accompanied by the emergence of new parties and the fragmentation of traditional ones?

Wouldn't the more valuable contribution be to answer why? The methods may need to be revised to capture data that would answer this more cohesively. Right now, the data is descriptive and speculative. 

Third, this poses another empirical problem not addressed by the author. Other potential explanations. These same technological changes occurred throughout the world, so why was Latin America unique? At least addressing other potential explanations such as political instability, US intervention, etc. is intellectually necessary. 

As a result, the paper doesn't say much in its current form. 

Author Response

Comments 1: 

First, the author(s) do not define what they mean by cyberpolitics. This lack of conceptual clarity runs throughout the article and makes it difficult to assess whether the results of the study are valid and add to the definition. Please define it clearly and how you operationalize it.

Response 1:

Comments 2: 

Similarly, the introductory conceptual framework is difficult to read through. It is not organized chronologically or in any other useful way. 

Response 2:

The reviewer is correct that a clear definition of "cyberpolitics" was missing. It was an important flaw of my previous version that was highlighted by both reviewers. The revised version is clearer and more focused, including a clear definition, but also emphasizing the dual-edged nature of cyberpolitics. The literature review was reorganized and now it focuses explicitly on cyberpolitics' role and integrates clearer research questions and a sharper regional emphasis.

Comments 3: 

Second, and a major issue, the research questions as written are very simple yes/no questions. Further they do not align with the concept of cyberpolitics as the author suggests they should in the title, abstract and introduction. For example, the author writes: 

Have technological changes been accompanied by the emergence of new parties and the fragmentation of traditional ones?

Wouldn't the more valuable contribution be to answer why? The methods may need to be revised to capture data that would answer this more cohesively. Right now, the data is descriptive and speculative. 

Response 3:

That is true that questions were simplistic. I revised them to focus more on "why" and "how". Both Research Questions were reformulated. In current version RQ are: 

(RQ1): How have cyberpolitics influenced the emergence of new political parties and the fragmentation of traditional party systems in Latin America?

(RQ2): How contextual factors (e.g., electoral calendars, political instability, socio-economic changes) interact with cyberpolitics to foster party fragmentation?

Comments 4: 

Third, this poses another empirical problem not addressed by the author. Other potential explanations. These same technological changes occurred throughout the world, so why was Latin America unique? At least addressing other potential explanations such as political instability, US intervention, etc. is intellectually necessary. 

Response 4:

Better defining the research questions (your comment 3) also strengthening the methods section. The updated methods section now provides a clearer explanation of metrics, incorporates additional details, and expands to address broader implications, such as democratic stability and ethical concerns. However, it’s evident that the Latin American case is not unique. In fact, much of the cyberpolitics literature focuses on the Global North, which, in my view, underscores a key value of this article: its contribution to a less-explored regional context.   Overall, I greatly appreciate your observations. Your revisions have highlighted key flaws, and addressing them has sharpened the article, resulting in a better-supported piece that effectively balances regional specificity with theoretical depth. I’m more satisfied with this version, which feels clearer and more focused.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second version of the text addresses many of the observations made by this reviewer of the original version. However, it still appears that the framing of the RQ 1 (How have cyber politics influenced the emergence of new political parties and the fragmentation of traditional ones?) and the hypotheses needs to be improved.  In particular, it is important for the author to clarify what kind of relationship he wishes to establish between cyberpolitics and the new parties. This question and this relationship are not yet sufficiently detailed. Does this mean that they are happening in tandem? That one promotes the other? If so, it should show that these parties have a more or less intense use of these technological tools, either for their organization or for campaigning. From this point of view, Internet penetration rates as a proxy for technological adoption- is not enough as evidence. I suggest reinforcing this point by reviewing communication journals in the region _Cuadernos Info, Palabra Clave, RLCS, Revista de Comunicación, Comunicación y Sociedad, etc.- where these links have been treated in greater depth.

Author Response

COMMENT: 

The second version of the text addresses many of the observations made by this reviewer of the original version. However, it still appears that the framing of the RQ 1 (How have cyber politics influenced the emergence of new political parties and the fragmentation of traditional ones?) and the hypotheses needs to be improved.  In particular, it is important for the author to clarify what kind of relationship he wishes to establish between cyberpolitics and the new parties. This question and this relationship are not yet sufficiently detailed. Does this mean that they are happening in tandem? That one promotes the other? If so, it should show that these parties have a more or less intense use of these technological tools, either for their organization or for campaigning. From this point of view, Internet penetration rates as a proxy for technological adoption- is not enough as evidence. I suggest reinforcing this point by reviewing communication journals in the region _Cuadernos Info, Palabra Clave, RLCS, Revista de Comunicación, Comunicación y Sociedad, etc.- where these links have been treated in greater depth.

Comment 1: I thank the reviewer for this important clarification request. In the revised manuscript, we explicitly frame cyberpolitics as an enabling mechanism rather than a parallel process. Cyberpolitics lowers the organizational and communicational barriers that traditionally constrained new political actors, allowing outsiders to mobilize directly via digital tools.

I revised the Research Questions and Hypotheses section and reformulated the hypotheses as follows:
H1: Cyberpolitics facilitates the emergence of new parties by lowering organizational and communicational entry barriers.
H2: Cyberpolitics accelerates party system fragmentation by fostering hyper-segmentation, personalization, and disintermediation.

• To address the point on evidence, I complemented our quantitative data (Internet penetration rates and party emergence) with case illustrations (Mockus in Colombia 2010, Fox in Mexico 2000, Bolsonaro in Brazil 2018) that demonstrate the strategic appropriation of digital platforms in party formation and campaigning.

Comment 2: The author should review Latin American communication journals (Cuadernos Info, Palabra Clave, RLCS, Revista de Comunicación, Comunicación y Sociedad, etc.) where these links have been treated in greater depth.

Response: We fully agree. We have now integrated relevant literature from these journals to strengthen the regional communication perspective:

• Valenzuela, S. (2013). “Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior.” Cuadernos.Info, 33, 113–123.
• Calvo, E., & Aruguete, N. (2018). “Fake news, trolls y la polarización política en redes sociales.” Revista de Comunicación, 17(2), 19–36.
• Serrano-Puche, J., et al. (2018).

These sources now appear in the revised Discussion section (pp. 13), where we explicitly connect our findings with communication scholarship from the region.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. 

I see a new definition of cyberpolitics: "For this paper we use the term Cyberpolitics referred to the intersection of the Internet and new technologies with political activities, encompassing communication, organization, and activism within political contexts."

Please make sure to correct the grammar here. 

I appreciate that there is now a definition but it does have a vagueness to it. How did the internet change communication, organization, and activism? I see some specifics in the literature review - digital parties, big data, and voting files, etc. 

So this area is improved. 

The issue remains around the data—the answer to the revised RQs seems to be Internet Penetration rates. In other words, more access to the Internet correlates with more Internet use in politics. Okay, fair, but how useful is that? 

The authors don't touch on much of the important literature they raised earlier that helps define cyberpolitics - why?

There is still much more work to be done to make a useful contribution to the literature. 

Author Response

COMMENTS 1: I see a new definition of cyberpolitics: "For this paper we use the term Cyberpolitics referred to the intersection of the Internet and new technologies with political activities, encompassing communication, organization, and activism within political contexts."

Please make sure to correct the grammar here. 

I appreciate that there is now a definition but it does have a vagueness to it. How did the internet change communication, organization, and activism? I see some specifics in the literature review - digital parties, big data, and voting files, etc. 

So this area is improved. 

We appreciate this helpful comment. The revised definition now specifies mechanisms:

• Old version: “We use the term cyberpolitics to describe the intersection of the internet and emerging technologies with political activities, including communication, organization, and activism in political contexts.”
• New version (p.1 ): “In this paper, we use the term cyberpolitics to describe the ways in which internet-based and emerging digital technologies reshape political communication, organization, and activism. This includes the use of social media for direct voter engagement, big data and microtargeting for campaign strategies, and digital platforms for decentralized yet personalized mobilization.”

This addresses the reviewer’s concern by clarifying how cyberpolitics operates.

COMMENTS 2: The issue remains around the data—the answer to the revised RQs seems to be Internet Penetration rates. In other words, more access to the Internet correlates with more Internet use in politics. Okay, fair, but how useful is that? 

We agree that Internet penetration is an insufficient proxy on its own. In the revised manuscript we combined the quantitative correlation (Internet access vs. new party emergence) with case-based evidence showing the role of cyberpolitics in several concrete campaigns cases (Mockus 2010, Fox 2000, Bolsonaro 2018).

COMMENTS 3: The authors don't touch on much of the important literature they raised earlier that helps define cyberpolitics - why?

We revised the Discussion to explicitly connect our empirical results with the earlier theoretical literature on digital parties (Gerbaudo, 2019), hyper-segmentation (Bodó et al., 2017), and fragmentation (Norris, 2024). This ensures that the literature reviewed is not only background but integrated into our explanatory framework.