Introduction
In Texas, the governor can sway public opinion as well as direct and influence the actions of other officials on multiple powers that the legislature confers to him or her. These are the informal powers conferred to the occupant of the seat of the state governor. Noteworthy, these powers are not based on law but arise from the popularity of the governor in public (Albert, Contiades & Fotiadu, 2017). These powers are primarily a tradition in the state and are derived from the local traditions, symbols, and ceremonies.
Over the years, many governors have made speeches and public appearances that reflect their roles as the chief of the state. In the recent past, governors have invested heavily in media and technology to achieve popularity with the public and achieve a high level of informal power (Albert, Contiades & Fotiadu, 2017). In the last two decades, however, a new approach has involved the use of social media to reach out to a large number of people to express their views, policies, and plans, and to directly engage with the public (Sadiq, Kapucu & Hu, 2020).
Governors and their spouses and other handlers have turned to such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Flickr, YouTube, and others as they seek to attain a wide following on social media (Jones et al., 2021). Given the current trend in which social media gives people the power to influence the actions and opinions of the public, this approach is now part of the Texas governors’ informal powers.
Writer’s Position
The tradition of giving the governor extra authority in form of informal power is a good idea. In modern times, people are constantly using social media not only for pleasure, but also as the chief means of communication, education, research, personal and group expression, business, and consultations (Jones et al., 2021). In essence, social media is the new form of interaction between people for multiple purposes and has literary replaced previous channels. For governors to interact with the electorates and residents of the state, they need to have a huge presence on social media platforms (Albert, Contiades & Fotiadu, 2017).
Here, they can listen to the people’s complaints, opinions, and suggestions, and explain their plans, policies, and views (Sadiq, Kapucu & Hu, 2020). Therefore, social media should be recognized as an official part of the governor’s informal power and a new aspect of the state customs. In this way, it is easy for the governors to influence the actions of other officials, especially the legislatures, in line with the popular public opinion or views.
Consideration of Opposing Arguments
Even though most people will support the writer’s view, opponents of the use of social media as a form of informal power to influence the actions of officials can argue that this method does not necessarily reflect the actual position of the majority. Indeed, the argument is that social media users are biased and tend to influence each other (Jones et al., 2021). In addition, social media users are not necessarily residents of the state and can be anybody anywhere, even outside America, and still influence the actions of the local leaders.
Conclusion
Based on this review of the governor’s informal powers, it is necessary to ensure that the social media aspect is part of the strategies that the leaders use to engage the public in making decisions and policies at the state level.
Recommendations
Governors should not entirely rely on social media but should use it as part of the wider methods of engaging the public. On their part, they will gain high levels of informal power while also ensuring that their policies and influence on the legislature reflect the actual interests of the people.
References
Albert, R., Contiades, X., & Fotiadu, A. (2017). The foundations and traditions of Constitutional Amendment. Hart Publishing.
Jones, M., Crain, E., Davis, M. L., & Wlezein, C. (2021). Texas politics today. Cengage Learning.
Sadiq, A. A., Kapucu, N., & Hu, Q. (2020). Crisis leadership during COVID-19: The role of governors in the United States. International Journal of Public Leadership, 17(1), 66-80. Web.