Today many politicians are embracing the internet (blogs, websites, social networking and other social media forums) to reach out to voters. But so far they have not been very successful in engaging the Indian population in a dialogue with them about their own party's platform or their personal stands on issues of public importance.

One of the major reasons is that the efforts so far by politicians have been only marketing campaigns rather than efforts to organize the community, or to translate the population at-large into reliable vote banks. A party having or not having a website cannot be the major reason for people to choose party affiliations, but having a good and interactive website it can cause people with a certain party preference to articulate their support for that party more strongly. And articulation of the support in public can motivate them to stick with that stand till election time, and also cause more people to speak up in support and identify themselves with the political party.

Many current initiatives by the political parties, and BJP seems to be the more determined to use the Internet in a big and systematic way, are bound to fail as they are just copying Western ideas of running political campaigns into an Indian environment. And the difference in the Indian environment from the Western environment is not only in digital penetration or techno-saviness of the masses, but the difference lies in the very nature of how power flows in the Indian Society and the inefficiencies in its flow compared to the Western societies. For example, the funds for a politicians campaign in the United States are collected from the citizen and there upper limits to the amount that can be contributed by a citizen/corporate, and all of this must be publicly disclosed. So, to raise more money politicians have to reach out to more and more people, and like Obama/Hillary/McCain  get people to contribute  $5, $50, etc. Thus, their approach in the US elections was a marketing and fundraising campaign. This does not hold true for India, and the reason for an Indian Politician to make a website cannot be his/her intention to collect contributions from the public.  

Another example of the difference in the US and Indian milieu is the notion of access to the politician or his office. Access to a politician in India is almost impenetrably guarded by a circle of people around the politician and his/her office in contrast to the politicians in the US. So, having "discussion forums", or "feed back" links are misleading on an Indian politician's website as they signal that a website visitor can just by tapping the keyboards get the attention of the politician - which due to the layer of people around the politician is not true. And if you can't get access to the politician, or can't find out a reasonable path by which to access the politician from the website, then what good is this electronic outpost for most citizens?    Hence, to succeed websites of Indian politicians must be grounded in Indian realities and not mere copies of websites of Western politicians.

Despite the growing number internet users today, many Indian politicians and political parties are reluctant to tap the growing number of Indian Internet users. One clear hinderance to the adoption of the net by the Indian politican is that most cannot figure out the basic tradeoff that they face - what do I want from my website for the citizens, and what am I willing to give in return to the citizens for getting what I want. Without addressing this basic issue of access, aggressive marketing campaigns like that being down by one of the major political parties may be shooting at the wrong target in the Indian context. There is a plethora of direct mail and there is a huge amount of graphic ads of the party's Prime Ministerial candidate's portal on thousands of websites across the web - there is a very intense online marketing campaign going on. Surely almost every one knows about the PM candidate, and to expect people to go and read about his bio, daily adventures, etc is not rational. And hoping that as more people know the PM candidate has his own website they will vote for him is also not realistic. So, what is it that the visitor should be provided when he visits the website? The visitor shoulf be provided access to the candiate or access to people in his circle and influence. The question that becomes most important for the candiate to decide, and infact for every Indian politician aspiring to create a website is - "in this new electronic channel and platform that is created, what do I want to flow to the people, what do I want to flow from the people, and what is that can flow amongst people on the platform that I create?"

The problem is complex not only in Indian context but in US also. Of interest is as to how Mr. Obama will transform his website meant for campaign to a website meant to govern. The way in which his free-flow conversations on websites as  a candidate are tempered to match the staid conversations of  the POTUS office, the way in which he will get his administration to respond to concerns raised by citizens, etc will help guide Indian politicians. Indian politicians should learn lessons not from Obama the candidate's website, but from Obama the President's website. The restrictions and realities of Obama the president's websites are more akin to the need of the Indian politician.

A lot of Indian politics plays out in the shadows. The relationships are not clear, the stands are ambigious, and their positions can change based on political realities. As long as a website is considered by politicians as a place where they have to declare information, and then be held acountable to it, they will hesitate. All they will be willing to provide is general banalities, which is not enough to make a successful website.

There is a lot of criticism about the current internet initiatives by politicians as many feel it won't work in India because the penetration of technology is restricted to urban India. But, this is wrong. Penetration of technology is only a restriction if you consider a website as a marketing effort. Otherwise even a basic mobile phone has sufficient technology to connect to the electronic presence (or website) of the Indian Politician. Further, the material on the website can be picked up by the mainstream press, and mass media, and that can reach the rural areas. The real question for the Indian politician is not really as to who all can you reach via your website, but the question is what will you do when someone does reach your website. Once citizens know the value proposition that the Indian politician offers on his/her website, they will find a way to connect with him/her - even if only briefly.

All social media forums from social networking site like Facebook, Orkut to websites to blogs to twitter have a role in the Indian Politicians website, but the politican will have to identify and create a space in it for each of these communication technologies. And it is important to note that these social media forums involve a give and take, i.e. that is what makes it social. So, the politician has to decide that what he/she wants to take, and what he/she or other people in his social network are willing to give on his/her behalf. All the social media sites are used to find people who have a preference for a party or politician, and this is a form of targeted marketing. And twitter, blogs, etc are just a form of communicating effectively. Twitter technology just means sending sms to a huge group of people - just like group sms messaging. But the twitter marketing means that only people who have expressed a need to hear from you get the sms - that is how it is different from group/bulk sms messaging. Further facebook, orkut, etc are important because of the marketing that happens amongst people with certain declared preferences, and the possibility that your message will be heard mostly by people willing to listen to you in the first place ...

Despite websites or blogs or social networking sites, online supporters and voters seemed pretty disappointed by the weak response of leaders to their requests, pleas and comments.  They are disappointed, because the access that seems possible when you visit the website turns out to be illusionary when tried in practice, and hence is a big disappointment. What sort of bonding needs to be done is the toughest of the questions that has to be decided by the individual politicians, as it is according to their needs that they must cultivate their website and bonding. At the least the politican must spell out clearly on the website the clear and fair path according to which they citizen can gain access to the politician, even if it involves layers of heirarchy.

There are many challenges to adapting the internet and communication technologies in the 2009 general elections. Two to 3 months is too short a period in which something dramatic can happen.  It is true that each day is an eternity in a political campaign, but the Indian politican has not yet gotten a solution to the tradeoff - "what do I want from my website for the citizens, and what am I willing to give in return to the citizens for getting what I want." The more there is in the website for the citizen, the more will it give back to the Indian Politician. The more the website empowers citizen, the more the website will empower the Indian Politician.

One of the ways to empower citizens is to help them peek into the corridors of power, and then provide them tools to be able to make those in power more transparent and accountable. The RTI Act of 2005 is the most powerful tool that the Govt has given to the citizen, and will someday be used by many politicans to help people seek administation transparency and accountability, and knowing that their actions are also open to RTI will make them more proactive about the use/abuse of power. The judicious use and spread of information obtained by RTI Act will make the websites of Indian politicians more meaningful and eventually lead to websites being important tools in the fight between political parties.

To be a really effective tool, there must be something that is being leveraged. A website that uses the leverage of information (transparency) and access (accountability) is going to be effective and powerful tool in the political battles ....