The Question
This question is posted on behalf of Kunzang Wangdi, member of the Electoral Commission of Bhutan
 
The Election Commission of Bhutan has been asked by political parties whether they can use social media. We at the Election Commission are currently in the process of formulating a policy on this issue and would be grateful for any responses to the following questions:
 
How can social media best be managed for elections and party politics while still ensuring a level playing field? Is there any material available on best practice regarding social media?

Summary of responses
Rather than managing social media through regulation, it is advised that an approach of self-regulation on the part of political parties is more appropriate. Any attempt to manage or regulate online content is hard to justify from a freedom of speech perspective.  One expert suggests that EMBs develop a working memorandum of understanding with political parties on social media.

In terms of creating a level playing field, it is recommended that the focus should be on campaign finance regulations rather than attempting to regulate social media usage.

External Resources
• UN Human Rights Committee of the UN Special Rapporteur, Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, 2011 
• South Korea lifts ban on Internet for electioneering, channelnewsasia.com, 13 January 2012,
• Election Ontario, Election Finance FAQ 

Names of contributors
1. David Ward
2. Gilliam McCormack
3. John Maphephe

Dear Kunzang Wangdi

The easiest response to your question is the best way for the Internet or social media to be managed is through systems of self-regulation not statutory or public regulation. If the major concern is to create a level playing field then campaign finance regulations are a better option than trying to regulate online space used by political parties.

So in respect to freedom of speech the best practice policy is for EMBs not to issue binding rules or regulations on social media use of political parties, but to provide for a level playing field through campaign regulations. Self-regulatory codes of conduct for online media are much more suitable and do not unduly infringe on the right of political parties to impart information online or limit the right of voters to receive information accordingly.

In fact in general within the freedom of speech human rights framework ‘restrictions which may be deemed legitimate and proportionate for traditional media are often not so with regard the internet’ (UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression). This means that the bar for interventions in respect to freedom of speech online is set even higher than is done for traditional media such as broadcasters.

Therefore regulating content online, particularly political content that has special recognition, due to its importance in a democracy is particularly problematic. In line with best practice it is better to use campaign finance tools of accountability to provide for a level playing field rather than to intervene in the rights of political parties to freedom of speech online which would not reach the legitimate and justifiable threshold in the freedom of speech framework.

To give an example very narrow restrictions of Article 19 in the ICCPR still apply online in respect to harm, but these are very narrow and only permit very limited restrictions to freedom of speech and no prior restraint.

For basic principles of online freedom of speech issues I would recommend you have a look at some of the joint statements of the special rapporteurs on the Internet and the annual reports to the UN Human Rights Committee of the UN Special Rapporteur- the 2011 one deals directly with the Internet and online communications.

http://www.osce.org/fom/66176

UNDP is actually working on a manual on some of these issues and hoping that this will be available later this year. If you need any more info on this please feel free to ask away.

Best david

Thank David and Gillian, links and your views are both helpful for us. in principle we are also think more of facilitating in as against restriction or regulation. we feel tat there is lot that social media can offer in education of voters and other stakeholders. Looking forward to hear of best practices from others. 

Thanks, sincerely, Kunzang

The use of social media can serve as conduit between voter educationalist and the citizens of the country, it has a potential to create a platform arena for public debate that leads to more intelligent policy and decision making. However careful regulatory framework and policy usage needs to be monitored and managed to avoid stakeholders interest getting mismanaged. From electoral management point of view , it can help the EMBs to build public relations by engaging a working Memorandum of understating with political parties. There are various ways of implementing this, depending on what kind of individual EMB technology policy, exchange of public information policy have been adopted already. The policy to regulate the exchange of views from operational point of view with political parties will also be appropriate to be guided by a functioning steering committee responsible for communications and public relations. Will recommends to the Election Commission of Bhutan to liaise with country internal statutory bodies such as communications authority to share information how some of this issues like have regulated.

Thank you john.