GOVERNANCE by Twitter to rule or to disseminate information to control minds can be described as a tweetocracy. This phenomenon has sparked a general debate about governance in the age of social media. Are posts and tweets from the social media accounts of Presidents and others in public leadership official statements?

To put it simply and tangibly, are the earthshattering tweets of President Donald Trump official government statements? Discussion on this issue leads us down an interesting road that elucidates the tweetocratic experience. Facebook is easily the largest and most popular social media medium but Twitter is set up for quick and short statements, hence the reason for its preference by world leaders. It is an American online social networking service that facilitates interaction between using through posting and messages known as tweets which are limited to 280 characters. Twitter represents the perfect exemplar for the idea I wish to elucidate in this documentation.

It has been reported that $ 1 billion will be spent on social media campaigning on the 2020 US elections. This expenditure ought to erase any doubt about the important connect between social media and political power. It is this recognition by numerous world leaders which has led to many of them establishing social media units in their offices to handle communications. This mechanism has revolutionized the dissemination of information and has given the masses an unprecedented chance to view the thoughts and ideas of people in power in real time. Every second of the day, citizens are regaled lofty language detailing plans, programmes and policies. Be that as it may, the central question stands: can messages posted on social media by leaders and government become official policy?

In my estimation, this question was answered by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in an eight-page submission to the District of Columbia; it was solicited by US District Judge Amit Mehta. The DOJ submitted, ‘In answer to the Court’s question, the government is treating the President’s statements to which Plaintiffs point– whether by tweet, speech or interview– as official statements of the President of the United States’. In my estimation, this ended the debate. There should be no argument about statements made by heads of government and other power brokers on social media; they are considered to be official pronouncements.

Insofar as these statements are official, they take on a governmental aspect. For example, the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi has 46.7 million followers on Twitter. Since he joined in January 2009, he has issued 22.7 K tweets which have been used to address governance issues via social media. It is such examples that give worth and real meaning to the idea of a tweetocracy. However, Mr. Modi does not hold the title of being the best exemplar of the practice of tweetocracy.

Governance by tweets is presently being best exemplified by the mercurial President of the United States of America, Donald J.Trump. The 45th President of the United States joined Twitter in March 2009, he presently has 59.4 million followers. This forum has been used by America’s Twitter-loving President to launch scathing attacks on perceived enemies and, above all, it has been utilized as a tool to produce some of the most cataclysmic geo-political announcements.

Tweetocracy also includes the component of how the people use social media for political participation, transparency and accountability and peacebuilding. There is no escaping the fact that with about 60 social media platforms in existence, this is a key frontier of modern governance.