During a number of the talks and workshops I've run around social media, the subject of politicians and their use of the internet often comes up. The discussion tends to focus on how candidates and elected officials use technology to foster a stronger relationship with their constituents and supporters.

Unfortunately a lot of people approach this topic with a lot of baggage and assumptions, associating tools like Twitter or Facebook with procrastination and wasting time. In my consulting work and in my media appearances I often promote the use of social media by politicians, however I make an effort to emphasize the need for authenticity and understanding how to use the tools properly, rather than symbolic appropriation as a token attempt to reach young voters.

Yet I still get feedback from people who say they don't want their elected officials wasting their time on Facebook, although one assumes they do expect these same pols to answer letters that they receive. The reality however is that modest use is what we can all manage, and it is exactly the weak ties that politicians tend to have with their constituents that can be strengthened by use of interactive platforms.

Just about every politician in the industrialized world has a Blackberry or equivalent smart phone and as a result probably wastes far too many braincells on useless email. Why not allocate five to fifteen minutes of Blackberry time to login to Facebook and check in with your fans or friends.

There are a number of politicians and candidates who are doing this, in an authentic and genuine way, but there are many more who have their staffers running their social media accounts on their behalf, which is understandable, but also self-defeating.

Let the staffers have their own accounts and make the campaign more transparent. Otherwise there will be gotcha moments when politicians abuse these platforms by using them without understanding them.

Twitter for example is a platform that many politicians are told they should use, however there's no point in using Twitter without actually participating in the culture. Social media is conversational media, and so don't enter the space unless you're willing to engage in the conversation.

I wrote a post last week about Elizabeth May and her exclusion from the leader's debates. I'm happy to say that decision has been reversed, but at the same time, the more I learn about May and the Greens the less I like. So I'll single her out (as there are many others) as a pol who is using Twitter without really understanding it. She posts updates about where she is, but has no interest or desire in Twitter as an environment. She follows nobody, and sees the platform as a dumping ground for her status.

This is kind of tragic really, as the Greens have the most to gain from embracing social media. The environment really is the most pressing issue, and yet they are neither able to make it a pressing issue, nor convey to voters (and the MSM) that they are not a one issue party (which they're not). There were a couple of days after she gained entry to the leader's debates when Canadians across the country wanted to learn more about Elizabeth May, and yet the Greens were really not in a position to capitalize on that.

There is a crisis of leadership in Canadian politics, and I can't help but feel it is largely generational. An incredible opportunity exists for a politician to embrace the emerging media and ride a wave of change that exists in our culture but has yet to really infiltrate the government. The problem here in Canada is nobody in a position of leadership has had the courage to open themselves to the internet and all the risks associated with it.

Instead we're all looking South to the Obama campaign, and even the McCain campaign, where perhaps due to the stakes, the game seems so much more intense and passionate. I'm critical of Obama, and while admiring his campaign's use of social media, feel that had he himself used it more, and embraced it more intimately, he would not be so vulnerable to the criticism that he's elitist.

Of course here in Canada we should be passionate, even more, perhaps we should be afraid. I know I feel fear coursing through communities here in Toronto as hushed tones begin to contemplate a Harper majority. We remember what a Harris majority meant, the blood still flows from those wounds.

While there are some who would say Stephen Harper provides strong leadership, the reality is that Harper provides strong deception, and strong denial of anyone who disagrees with him. That's not leadership, in the same way that a bully is not a popular leader.

Harper doesn't care about social media, and yet the Tories are the party that have embraced and employed it most effectively. Let's not forget the Tories today are partly grassroots populists from Alberta and the anti-Toronto common sense revolutionaries. They know how to use the tools to get their base out, why do the other parties ignore the same lessons?

Update: Elizabeth May's twitter account has changed, and is now being used a little more appropriately, replying to other users, and following those who are following her. Unfortunately it is a little deceiving as she is not the person working the account. Mind you, she may still be using it via human to human voice relay, however I still think it comes across as phony when a staffer runs the account on behalf of the pol.