Nepali Political Leaders’ Twitter Employ: Balancing Public Welfare and Party Promotion

Social media has become a crucial channel for political communication globally, and Nepal is no exception. This article examines how Nepali political leaders utilize Twitter, analyzing whether their online discourse prioritizes public welfare or party promotion. A recent study analyzing over 3,200 tweets from prominent Nepali politicians reveals a strategic balance between these two objectives.

The Evolution of Political Communication

Historically, political communication relied on in-person interactions, print media, and radio broadcasts, limiting reach and accessibility. The advent of television expanded audiences, but social media platforms like Twitter have fundamentally reshaped the landscape. These platforms enable direct communication between leaders and citizens, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers [1]. This shift enhances transparency and citizen participation, allowing for continuous observation of political priorities.

Twitter in Nepal: Bridging Communication Gaps

In Nepal, social media bridges communication gaps between political elites and citizens, reaching both urban and remote populations [2]. Twitter, in particular, has emerged as a significant platform for political expression and public engagement.

Study Methodology: Analyzing Twitter Discourse

A recent study analyzed 3,293 tweets from prominent Nepali political leaders to identify their priorities. The methodology involved:

• Data Preprocessing: Cleaning the tweets by removing URLs, mentions, emojis, and normalizing text.
• Label Generation: Using a rule-based keyword matching approach to categorize tweets as either Public-IssueFocused (PIF) or Party-PromotionFocused (PPF).
• Feature Extraction: Employing Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) to convert text into numerical features.
• Supervised Classification: Training a Logistic Regression classifier to categorize tweets.
• Priority Score Computation: Calculating a score for each leader based on the ratio of PIF to PPF tweets.

Key Findings: A Strategic Balance

The study revealed several key findings:

• The machine learning classifier achieved approximately 79.9% accuracy in distinguishing between PIF and PPF tweets.
• Most leaders demonstrate a tendency toward public-issue-focused communication, particularly regarding governance, development, and public welfare.
• A subset of leaders prioritize party-centered messaging, focusing on rallies, campaigns, and internal party activities.
• Leaders strategically balance issue advocacy and party promotion on Twitter.

Leader-Level Analysis: Varying Priorities

Analysis of individual leaders’ Twitter activity revealed varying priorities. Some consistently emphasize public welfare, while others focus more on party activities. The Priority Score provides a quantitative measure of this emphasis, with higher scores indicating a stronger focus on public issues.

Limitations and Considerations

The study acknowledges limitations related to the keyword-based labeling approach, which may introduce some noise. However, the use of a supervised machine learning classifier helps to mitigate this issue. The research focused solely on publicly available Twitter data and adhered to ethical guidelines by avoiding the collection of private information.

Conclusion: Transparency and Accountability in the Digital Age

This study provides valuable insights into the communication strategies of Nepali political leaders on Twitter. The findings demonstrate a strategic balance between public engagement and party promotion, contributing to greater transparency and accountability in political communication. As social media continues to evolve, further research is needed to understand the long-term implications of these trends for Nepali democracy.