It’s hard to imagine a politician today who isn’t present on social media. However, social media is a double-edged sword, as it can embarrass elected officials when misused. But ultimately, are social media really an added value for democracy, or are they contributing to its erosion? The Canadian Press spoke with experts.
According to Catherine Ouellet, professor of political science at the University of Montreal, parties have no interest in doing without a presence on social networks.
“For all parties, it allows them to speak directly to people and filter journalists. We can have a direct message without a filter and without framing,” she explains in an interview with The Canadian Press.
“To completely cut ourselves off from social networks, I would find that a little peculiar from a strategic point of view. Publishing a video that is seen by 12 million voters is very few resources compared to what it brings in,” adds the professor.
Premier François Legault has 655,000 followers on his Facebook account, 392,000 on X (formerly Twitter) and 224,000 on Instagram. A video posted on the latter platform, in which he praises his government’s accomplishments on the subject of Quebec identity, has been viewed by more than 43,000 people.
According to Carleton University applied politics professor Émilie Foster, it is necessary for party leaders and ministers to have a presence on social networks like Facebook and X, but not necessarily for ordinary MPs.
“I know some people who have used social media very little and who are re-elected. It can be done. (…) What matters is being in your local media and being on the ground. That matters a lot more,” says the former Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) MNA for the Charlevoix–Côte-de-Beaupré riding.
She herself used social networks (Facebook, X and Instagram) when she was an MP.
Philippe Dubois, professor of public and political communication at the National School of Public Administration, believes, for his part, “that the major social media platforms are essential today.”
“They allow for faster reactions and interactions than traditional media (…) Also, people expect to find the parties online. Not being there on these platforms could send a strange message,” he adds.
But social networks are not only used to reach voters. Parties also use them for “political marketing” and “micro-targeting” their potential political clientele, says Émilie Foster. The data collected thus becomes precise resources at election time, for example.
Double-edged knife
While they are useful tools for politicians, social networks are certainly not without risk. We have seen Quebec elected officials embarrass themselves with some of their publications.
Transport Minister Geneviève Guilbault had to explain and apologize after the “Journal de Montréal” found several photos of her on her social networks where she was not wearing her seat belt in the car.
François Legault regularly shares his readings on social networks. Although this type of publication is generally harmless, a controversy erupted when the Prime Minister spoke about Kevin Lambert’s latest book, May our joy remainThe author – who clearly did not appreciate François Legault’s interpretation of his work – had harshly criticized it when it was published.
And during elections, it’s not uncommon to see candidates find themselves in trouble for old social media posts that should have been deleted.
“Social networks can also quickly have more risks than benefits, because if you make a mistake, the national media will pick it up and that’s risky,” emphasizes Émilie Foster.
“Poisoning democracy”
About fifteen years ago, in the scientific literature, social networks were seen as “democracy enhancers” that would make it possible to “connect everyone,” says the professor at Carleton University.
Things have changed, however. “Social networks are helping to poison democracy,” says Émilie Foster.
Several problems are raised by the professors interviewed by The Canadian Press, whether we think of the phenomenon of echo chambers or the disinformation – amplified by artificial intelligence – which is rife on social networks.
“In the long run, it polarizes the debate and contributes to increasing aggression and incivility. People, when they lock themselves in their bubble of algorithms and are always presented with the same thing, are convinced that they hold the truth, but their truth is based on disinformation,” summarizes Émilie Foster.
“Many studies point the finger at social networks as fueling polarization (…) It doesn’t help constructive dialogue between citizens who don’t think the same thing,” says Catherine Ouellet. However, she qualifies this by stating that social media also contributes to a form of “democratization” of politics.
And with disinformation content mixing with politicians’ posts, it’s becoming difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood. “The power dynamics on social media are different than in real life. On the big platforms – on X for example – whether you’re the premier of Quebec or a convenience store employee, technically you have the same importance,” says Professor Philippe Dubois.
To exist publicly, politicians must therefore invest in these platforms to speak to their voters and to highlight their achievements. At the same time, they expose themselves to the risk of being vehemently criticized by “trolls” or even seeing their publications drowned in the flow of disinformation.
The issue of regulating social media is often raised to counter its problems. However, it is an eminently complex issue for governments. Let us recall that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has been blocking Canadian news on its platforms since the government passed a law requiring the payment of royalties to the media.
“There will have to be more consultation between countries so that we can demand that platforms have more ethical practices,” says Émilie Foster, who is well aware of the difficulties involved.
“I think we are in a transition, but sooner or later, these platforms will have to be more regulated,” she adds.