In a week, Nepal will elect new members of parliament, leading to the appointment of a new Prime Minister. As social media becomes a primary news source for many, it has also become a new avenue for political communication, engagement and influence. The growing digital dimension of political debates has real-world consequences, shaping voters’ perspectives far beyond the online realm. Therefore, it is interesting to observe how digital platforms are being mobilised for elections, the role of the election code of conduct in enforcing ethical guidelines and standards for such campaign behaviour, and its ultimate impact on voter opinions and the election outcome.

Digital campaigns

Social media provides a platform where a politician can directly reach large numbers of voters in an unfiltered way. For example, recent Facebook posts by Balen Shah have been fundamental in communicating with his audience in a manner. This unfiltered connection is similar to how Twitter became an influential tool for Donald Trump during the US elections, with Facebook now serving a similar function for Balen, often shaping the entire news cycle.

While candidates now have the ability to reach voters quickly and widely through social media, the code of conduct limits the nature and scope of discourse that can take place within this medium. Although the regulator has been active in enforcement, for example, seeking explanations from candidates for various insults and misleading content posted online, the actual compliance and enforcement remain weak.

Moreover, social media offers a cost-effective way to communicate with voters, particularly benefiting smaller political parties with limited resources and independent candidates. This is especially relevant in Nepal's current political landscape, where several smaller parties and independent candidates have emerged, successfully penetrating strongholds dominated by major parties, effectively leveraging social media to reach voters in areas where the larger parties have traditionally held significant control.

Broadcasting dilemma

There is a presence of a few online media in Nepal who creatively fine-tune their messages and posts to target a specific voter audience instead of publishing balanced posts. While traditional broadcast media are heavily regulated during political campaigns, online media often escape similar scrutiny because the rules regarding online media remain faint and further unclear in terms of applicability. Consequently, online media has been successful in promoting a particular political party or candidate under the guise of independent media. This defeats the precise objective of the election code of conduct, which is to ensure that each citizen has access to a balanced range of views and opinions.

Political advertising

The use of advertisements for conducting political campaigns on social media, compared to traditional media, is another grey area that plays a crucial role in influencing voters. The election code of conduct limits the number of advertisements a political party or a candidate can broadcast within 24 hours period. Similarly, political advertisements in private sector newspapers are restricted to a defined size. These measures aim to guard against the possibility that private interests may control outcomes through collusion between media and politicians, or the buying of influence over public opinion. However, political parties have successfully been able to upend the traditional rules of advertising by the use of social/online media because the applicability of this provision doesn’t seem to extend to social media, where a large part of electoral communication and campaigning takes place today.

Another major policy issue is understanding what can be classified as a political advertisement. Can all candidates’ and political parties’ posts be considered election advertisements? Are promoted tweets or similar features considered advertisements and, therefore, subject to regulation? Without clear guidelines on this matter, the regulation of political advertisement remains ambiguous, potentially leading to an uneven playing field and skewing the fairness of the electoral process.

The code of conduct also restricts opinion polls, stating that from the date of candidate nomination until the final announcement of results, no one is allowed to conduct opinion polls or publish/announce the results of such polls regarding candidates or political parties. The regulation surrounding opinion polls has long sparked international debate about the duration of the prohibition and whether it can be justified as a restriction on freedom of expression. However, Setopati, an online news portal, has published reports claiming that, based on interactions with voters in a particular area, a specific percentage of voters indicated support for a particular candidate, leading to the conclusion that a particular candidate will win. Such acts may appear, on the one hand, to constitute a form of indirect polling; on the other hand, they may be characterised as journalistic analysis rather than formal opinion polling.

Misinformation and disinformation

Deepfakes, misleading chatbots and fabricated political content are increasingly being used to simulate public support and manufacture political scandals, with microtargeting techniques amplifying their psychological impact on voters. The rise of fake accounts and synthetic media further complicates the information landscape, making it difficult for users to distinguish between authentic and manipulated content.

The increased use of generative AI in political campaigns adds a new layer of complexity. In the present context, generative AI has been used widely to generate the voice, images and videos of candidates urging voters to support them. The election code of conduct precisely prohibits such conduct by restricting the dissemination of false, misleading or hateful information, as well as the operation of fake websites or social media accounts designed to influence the election outcomes. However, different content forms of disinformation add complexity to the regulation and enforcement of the created rules, particularly when it comes to identifying the creators of such content.

Silence period

The scope of permissible conduct during the silence period is not well defined, leading to interpretational issues about what forms of news and information are meant to be restricted. In the age of digital media, the enforceability of the silence period is questionable. One of the reasons is the constant progress in the field of social communication techniques, which creates innovative, unknown possibilities and methods of influencing views, attitudes and political behaviour of voters.

The scope of media/communication entities is limited to entities established or registered in Nepal, and the Code of Conduct does not apply extraterritorially nor does it appear to target foreign entities. Since many violations of the election silence period originate from websites operating outside Nepal, it has been proven to be difficult to monitor the observance of these restrictions and their enforcement.

Conclusion

Social media has transformed political campaigns in Nepal, offering new opportunities for direct voter engagement but also presenting challenges in regulation, misinformation and enforcement. The election code of conduct provides guidelines to protect electoral integrity, but its ability to address the rapid evolution of digital campaigning remains uncertain. In tandem with this, balancing fair campaigns with freedom of expression is crucial for ensuring democratic engagement. The future of elections in Nepal and potentially beyond will depend on how well these challenges are addressed in the face of evolving technology and politics.