Impact:

• • • The political utility of any action is ultimately reflected by the impact on the perception and voting behaviour of the people.
    • Mass leaders from political platforms constitute the major force. The religious, caste, and other group leaders also have control over people to some extent.
    • Mass media like TV, Print makes an agenda more attractive and generates a strong emotion around it. This invariably affects decision making.
    • Social media increases connections between people and creates an environment to share opinions through videos and messages. 
    • If social media users become creative then they can interact with other people to share new ideas, discuss and make an impact on political leaders, opinion makers, and also the people.
    • Apart from this, economic factors, disparities,  governmental failures affecting their life greatly influence people. 

• • • Many of the above factors have an overlapping effect. The overall significance of their roles normally remains the same.

Limitations:

• • • If one considers the vast impact of mass leaders, mass media, local group leaders, influencers, economic failures, and disparities, over the perception of people, the influence of social media either directly or indirectly is truly very limited.
    • Some of its limitations are inbuilt as users are independent and so discipline, coordination is difficult. Some of the limitations are due to the approach adopted by users.
    • They spread the net wide as information available is so vast. But diving deep into the subject is more required to understand it thoroughly, without jumping to conclusions. 
    • Patience is needed to read, listen, think about the heart of the problem, and what a person intends to convey. Passion, emotions do not pay in analytical processes for understanding the truth. Calm thinking and discussions bring in solutions.
    • In a fast-charged, changing world, they do not have time to wait. They expect solutions ‘yesterday’. Our approaches to solutions turn primitive. People want Mahabharata to be conveyed in 2 lines and solutions in a single line or word. 
    • Further, we do not trust ourselves and our own judgments. In our anxiety to obtain ‘Nirvana’ from all problems, we fall for imposters, fanatics, babas, ‘partial’ Gandhians selling their lies and brands. 
    • We need not get enamoured or disturbed by the big or small names or issues involved or the lies, disinformation that is spread all around. There is no need to suspect the ulterior motive of ordinary fellow human beings speaking the truth.
    • Just honestly, we are to accept the truth if we feel so and should not hesitate to disagree when they are wrong. These honest agreements and disagreements have their own way of evolving the truth. People will be able to judge what is right.
    • We are to be open-minded to allow free flow of information and ideas. Discussions and analysis should not get strangulated due to the inadequacy of contents. In this faulty process, what is true and right would get mutilated, sometimes beyond recognition.

Scope:

• • • Speaking the truth and searching for the truth behind issues is a pleasure. One has to go the depth and do a critical analysis and research to understand and unearth it. We do not go to the depth of issues, as we are habituated to a superficial approach and not because of our inabilities to do such a critical analysis.
    • The kind of ‘platonic love’ and detached relationship with politics does not help much if one is passionate and agonized about the non-governance and misgovernance by those ruling the country. There is a need for optimum utilization of our intellectual abilities by those who can spare time for this purpose.
    • We are not going to become Voltaire, Rousseau, and the like, to bring about a ‘French Revolution’ but we may contribute to the resolution of internal conflicts within the country and also problems within the opposition parties to fight fascism.
    • Some questions may be raised as to what we are going to do when there is so much talent available in the inner corridors of political parties who are playing the role of the opposition. They need not be right always. If they had been so, we may not be facing the present situation.
    • But it is not an easy process as any objective criticism may be looked at with suspicion by political parties and its supporters, as some internal grievances like in Congress do emerge as expressions of right to dissent but discredit the party. Still, there are ways to overcome it. 
    • It is not that all our criticisms, suggestions will reach the right quarters. It is also not easy for them to interact directly as there may be scope for misuse. They may not be able to lend their name to it. 
    • Congress, for example, can publicly invite and welcome all suggestions. Many people are getting suffocated that their views are not getting heard. 
    • Whether their views are right or wrong, whether their ideas are worth considering or not, let them have the satisfaction of presenting their ideas. 
    • Congress can seriously develop a system for consideration of such contributions. It may generate a lot of goodwill for the party. It may be said the provision already exists. The question is whether it is effective in use.

Endnote:

• • • When elections are nearer the dynamics in politics and its effects on people will take its own course.
    • Before the actual sufferings of the people and their impact, all factors and contributions may become nothing. 
    • Still, users of social media will be doing a great service if they could put in optimum use of their time and efforts to communicate the truth, bring in clarity and create awareness among people in this part of the disturbing world with so much dust and mudslinging polluting the political atmosphere.