If you’ve ever glanced over a political Facebook post or let an automated political phone call go unanswered, you’re probably familiar with how campaigning works. Maybe the next political ad you receive will look like a chat from a trusted friend. Candidates and their teams worldwide are now turning from generic mass emails and public addresses to the more intimate world of encrypted messaging apps. Political campaigns now operate largely from messaging apps, bringing organization, personal engagement and sometimes unsettling influence to the election process.
The BJP led by Prime Minister Modi created hundreds of thousands of WhatsApp groups to debate the polls in regional dialects right on people’s phones. Jair Bolsonaro’s team sent thousands of political memes and bulletins directly to voters’ WhatsApp phones during his successful 2018 presidential campaign in Brazil. These don’t just inform, they persuade voters precisely when they’re most receptive. They’re powerful, yet dangerous on the campaign trail.
Campaigns are replacing phone banks with WhatsApp groups.
Messaging apps provided campaigns with a precious opportunity. intimacy at scale. Emails feel corporate. Social media is noisy. But a WhatsApp ping? That’s immediate—and oddly personal. So many campaigns are making messaging apps their main mode of political communication. Recent research from Twilio showed that almost two-thirds of Gen Z voters in the U.S. prefer to interact with political content through DMs and messaging apps over other channels. Why? It’s like talking directly with someone, rather than blasting out information to many people.
Parties are using messaging platforms for various election tasks.
- Gather volunteers and prompt attendance by running virtual invite-only communities.
- Share location-based voter reminders
- Test messaging variations in micro-demographics
- Field queries and instantaneously provide answers using automated tools.
During the most recent election in Kenya, politicians serving rural areas circumvented unstable internet connectivity by merging SMS services and WhatsApp messages with information local tribes could understand. It’s innovation rooted in practical solutions from the bottom up.
The Bots Behind the Ballots
Let’s talk about automation. Today, candidates run chatbots across popular apps such as Messenger and Telegram. These automated messengers connect with thousands of constituents simultaneously. Bernie Sanders’ U.S. campaign used a custom Facebook Messenger bot in the 2020 election to connect people to donation links, answer their questions about his policies, and provide details about upcoming events in their areas. It lacked fanfare but it got results. It achieved more with less sentiment.
But it’s not always frictionless. Emmanuel Macron’s Telegram outreach to youth proved difficult—they asked for a more personal connection. They added instant connections to live humans once the bot was in place. The lesson? Bots make tasks simpler but you need real interaction to really connect.
In straightforward terms, Dr. Alina Simón, a digital governance expert at the University of Toronto, says:
Bots are strong on volume but you don’t want them to automatically cut people off. They can initiate the dialogue but shouldn’t be the only ones listening.
Where Influence Gets Risky
Some messages aren’t sharing information. Disinformation flourishes in private spaces because truth can’t easily keep up. Disinformation networks in Nigeria’s 2023 election had a clear advantage using WhatsApp over the more open public sphere. Why? Close communities are susceptible to mistrust—facts matter less.
The way real-time election coverage was managed in Brazil’s 2018 polls is often studied as a cautionary example. Supporters of Bolsonaro filled WhatsApp with speculative messages. Media organisations were playing catch up as falsehoods spread widely in intimate group chats and tight-knit circles. Closed networks amplify both the feeling of intimacy and repetition of false claims—a menace harder to tackle than stray rumors online.
Real Conversations, Real Influence
Ukraine’s presidential party leveraged Telegram for two-way conversations during the parliamentary elections, enabling real-time Q&A sessions, polls and swift dissemination of up-to-date information during times of crisis. As breakouts in fighting intensified across the country in March of 2024, the campaign employed a Telegram bot providing instant protection guidance and shelter information for voters. This went well beyond political promotion. It was providing vital information to keep people safe.
The way forward for political campaigners may be to use messaging apps to deliver vital services rather than relying solely on broadcasts. Apps like Telegram and WhatsApp playing a vital role in both spreading information and offering help. But execution matters. Too much automation, cold language or failing to understand local sensitivities can leave a campaign in tatters. A U.K. municipal campaign I worked with tested an American-style chatbot approach and ended up turning off seniors with fears of being “watched and not listened to.”
Final Message: Encrypted, Engaged, or Exploited?
Here’s the paradox: At the same time that messaging apps are fuelling more active participation in politics, they threaten to undermine the processes that keep governments transparent and responsible. They save costs, offer one-on-one interactions and reach countless people—but also provide ample opportunities for dysinformation and evasion of scrutiny. In a world where politics has gone mobile and voters are increasingly tech-savvy, the effect of messaging apps is likely to be transformative at all levels.
The real question isn’t whether to use messaging apps in politics but how to handle their impact. We need to decide if our democratic processes can manage mass communication that takes place in secret.
And perhaps more urgently: Is the person sending you that message who they say they’re?