USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN COMMUNICATION STRATEGY IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR EFFECTIVE INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC: FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Abstract
The article is dedicated to the analysis of the features and prospects of using social networks in the communication strategy in public administration for effective interaction with the public through their ability to promote democracy, ensuring greater participation of citizens in the socio-political life of the country, providing information about the actions of the authorities and more opportunities for interaction during the adoption of political decisions, which contributes to the legitimacy of power. Also highlighted are the features of legislative support, court decisions, and the practice of using accounts by officials and civil servants in the USA in social networks, which are classified as public forums for interaction with citizens. The results of the study prove that although social media platforms can be useful for civil servants and officials during their interaction, communication with citizens, however, they are not automatic mechanisms for public participation in governance, despite this the need for them is growing. Discussion and direct interaction between citizens and civil servants can strengthen the legitimacy of management decisions and, create stable conditions for the development of society, promote social dialogue, protect society and the state from political, economic, social crises. All this is capable of contributing to the support of power by the public, confidence in the adequacy and fairness of political decisions. It has been established that the authorities at all levels in Ukraine need to change the organizational culture, rules, policy, and procedures, then the problem of the legitimacy of power may disappear. The introduction of social network tools without changing the organizational culture in the bodies of state power and local self-government, procedures or rules – is not enough for interaction with the public in the public sphere or overcoming the problem of the legitimacy of power. Otherwise, officials and civil servants risk raising public expectations and not justifying them, which can lead to public distrust of power.
References
show/2939-17#n86 (дата звернення: 28.04.2024).
2. Світові лідери в соцмережах: у кого найбільше фоловерів. Слово і діло. 16.08.2023. URL: https://www.slovoidilo.
ua/2023/08/16/infografika/suspilstvo/svitovi-lidery-soczmerezhax-koho-najbilshe-foloveriv (дата звернення: 28.04.2024).
3. As Facebook turns 20, politics is out; impersonal video feeds are in. Social media are more popular than ever, but social
networks are dying. The Economist. 01.02.2024. URL: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/01/as-facebook-turns-
20-politics-is-out-impersonal-video-feeds-are-in (дата звернення: 24.04.2024).
4. Nic Newman. Overview and key findings of the 2023 Digital News Report. Reuters institute. 14.06.2023. URL: https://
reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023/dnr-executive-summary (дата звернення: 24.04.2024).
5. Заборона TikTok: у яких країнах та кому не можна користуватися додатком. Слово і діло. 29.03.2023. URL: https://
www.slovoidilo.ua/2023/03/29/infografika/svit/zaborona-tiktok-yakyx-krayinax-ta-komu-ne-mozhna-korystuvatysyadodatkom
(дата звернення: 29.04.2024).
6. Байден підписав закон, що змушує TikTok змінити власника у США. Радіо свобода. 24.04.2024. URL: https://www.
radiosvoboda.org/a/news-bayden-tiktok-zaborona/32919359.html (дата звернення: 24.04.2024).
7. Knox Claire Connolly. Public Administrators’ Use of Social Media Platforms. Administration & Society. 2016. Vol. 48.
Issue 4. P. 395–524. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/0095399713503463 (дата звернення:
24.04.2024).
8. Пилипенко Я. Рекламні мільйони на Prozorro: хто витрачає найбільше. Transparency international Ukraine. 17.03.2023.
URL: https://ti-ukraine.org/blogs/reklamni-miljony-na-prozorro-hto-vytrachaye-najbilshe/ (дата звернення: 20.04.2024).
9. Packingham V. North Carolina. Supreme court of the United States. № 15-1194. Argued February 27, 2017 – Decided June
19, 2017. URL: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf (дата звернення: 20.04.2024).
10. Opinion (holding blocking unconstitutional). Knight Institute v. Trump. A lawsuit challenging President Trump's blocking of
critics on Twitter. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columdia University. 19.07.2019. URL: https://knightcolumbia.org/
documents/a07ecc2a26 (дата звернення: 20.04.2024).
11. Morones A., Fallow K. When It Comes to Social Media Blocking, Campaign Accounts are Different. Knight First Amendment
Institute at Columdia University. 18.10.2022. URL: https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/institute-update-when-it-comes-tosocial-
media-blocking-campaign-accounts-are-different (дата звернення: 20.04.2024).
12. Конституція України. 1996. № 30. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text
(дата звернення: 19.04.2024).
13. Knight Institute Comments on Supreme Court Ruling on Public Officials and Social Media Blocking. Lindke v. Freed. One of
two Supreme Court cases addressing the application of the First Amendment to government officials’ social media accounts.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columdia University. 15.03.2024. URL: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/knightinstitute-
comments-on-supreme-court-ruling-on-public-officials-and-social-media-blocking (дата звернення: 19.04.2024).