After several other governments (US example) are aware of the reach of social media, the Swiss Parliament has launched its own Facebook Fanpage this month. It nicely explains the functions of the parliament, links to the most important sites of the swiss government, offers videos to politicians, links to the ongoing discussion in the parliament and has an event calender for the meetings to come.
I’m just waiting until the Facebook Fanpage will offer a Ustream account, so that Swiss citizens can watch the ongoing parliament sessions live via their web browser.
I think it’s a great idea and a necessary step for the Swiss parliament to launch this revolutionary project. On the other hand I suppose a agency constructed the Facebook page and is maintaining it as well (I doubt, that there is enough personnel with the necessary social media knowledge to build and interact on such a page) (please correct me if I’m wrong). This raises some questions.
As Facebook Fanpages are one of the most effective and direct way to communicate with consumers – or in this case citizens – and represent the company – or in this case the country – , it is questionable if outsourcing such a service can 1. communicate with the citizens in the appropriate way (give the right information) and 2. represent a whole country as intended by government. Sure, a Facebook Fanpage is a great way to share information but on the other hand people expect an active communication from the side of the Fanpage holder. Also putting yourself out there for the open discussion, gives the government the potential to be targeted. Not only should the positive sides be acknowledged but also the risks in putting yourself out in social media landscape (e.g fictive scenario: mean comments from around the world, after the Swiss chose to approve the ban of minarets in Switzerland). Other companies (e.g. Nestlé) had to learn the hard way, what risks social media can have.
Conclusion: Social Media for governments is definitely a good step in informing and keeping in tough with the people. Active discussions can be held and more transparency can be given to the citizens. This may stimulate public interest in politics and by integrating social media tools even bring more democracy to a country.
On the other hand the Facebook Fansite represents not a corporation firm but a whole country. A Facebook Page means making a country more vulnerable to attack (OK, comments for the wall are currently disabled but you can still comment the individual posts). Most likely it will be involved citizens to defend themselves on the page, but possibly not in the way the Government would want it. Also the Facebook Fansite should represent the position of the country.
I think this is a great idea and a good step in the right direction. I only hope the risks have been properly evaluated and precautions scenarios created (I hope they will never be necessary). Great ideas often mean great responsibilities as well.