THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN BANGLADESH’S PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: A CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS

The paper explores the role of social media in Bangladesh’s public diplomacy by identifying limitations and potential solutions. Recently, public diplomacy has expanded beyond state-to-state interactions to include state-to-people engagement. This shift is evident across various countries, including Bangladesh. Based on qualitative research through expert interviews, the paper identifies that social media holds significant potential for fostering peopleto- people connections, projecting a positive national image, and enhancing Bangladesh’s regional and international engagement. Notwithstanding that, the study identifies persistent structural and operational challenges (e.g., digital divide, low levels of digital and media literacy, proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, etc.) that continue to hinder proper utilisation of social media in pursuing the country’s public diplomacy. To address these impediments and maximise benefits, the paper recommends a multi-pronged approach that integrates innovative content, promotes digital and media literacy, cultivates strategic diplomatic competencies, and suggests reformations of other structural and institutional frameworks.

In the 21st century, communication has become an indispensable part of public diplomacy, and social media is utilised extensively to shape and maintain a country’s positive image in the international arena. It has been observed that, in this contemporary era, the age of digital technology is significantly influencing public diplomacy strategies. Most importantly, social media (e.g., Facebook), through its transformative power, has revolutionised public diplomacy by enabling direct communication, fostering interactive engagement, and enhancing the transparency of diplomatic efforts. The term “public diplomacy” commonly refers to a country’s strategic efforts to influence the audiences of other countries while building positive relationships, upholding national interests, and shaping global perspectives.1 A growing number of nations are incorporating social media into their public diplomacy initiatives as a way of adapting to the ever-changing digital landscape. This rapidly advancing digital environment assists in disseminating information about critical events and concerns (e.g., popular protests and conflicts). As a result, the dynamic digital context has not only widened the scope of a country’s diplomatic communication but also redefined how it should project its soft power2 to maintain fame on a global scale. In this regard, Bangladesh, a country of South Asia with a rich cultural heritage is gaining prominence in both regional politics and international affairs by leveraging its social media platforms. Recently, social media has emerged as a critical component of the country’s public diplomacy efforts to assert its national identity, strengthen cultural values, and shape its global image. Utilising this platform, various government agencies and cultural institutions alike disseminate information about numerous national events and traditional festivals (e.g., Pohela Boishakh) to enhance cultural visibility and foster international engagement.3 More precisely, social media has the strength to create “online political citizens”, empower ordinary people and mobilise movements.4 This has been reflected through the July uprising 2024, which demonstrated the remarkable impact of social media in shaping Bangladesh’s political landscape and receiving global attention. In response, the country’s diplomatic missions and government communication channels have actively engaged with global audiences, diaspora groups, and international agencies to maintain the country’s stability and manage its international image. These participatory networks (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, among others) have played a substantial role in mobilising public sentiment and extending outreach to global community.5 During this time, Bangladeshi diaspora has actively utilised social media tools to amplify the voices of the youth and other participants, regardless of age and gender.6 Utilising platforms such as Facebook and Twitter for diplomatic messaging has created new chances to facilitate discourse and engage international audiences, thereby advancing the overarching objective of public diplomacy. Although this alternative civic space has gained great momentum in Bangladesh, its potential, efficacy, and associated challenges while engaging foreign publics by the government have not yet been explored fully. To strengthen public diplomacy initiatives, a deeper understanding of current discourse and narratives around social media is required. Although ministries, embassies, diplomats, and government officials from various institutions are active on social media platforms to enhance the country’s international image, there is a lack of clarity about the extent of social media usage, coupled with associated strategies. It is in this context that this paper aims to analyse the contemporary dynamics of social media in the country’s public diplomacy efforts, with a focus on regional and international engagement. The core questions explored in this paper are: How is the potential of social media perceived in the context of Bangladesh’s public diplomacy efforts? What are the major barriers to the effective use of social media for public diplomacy? How can the strategic use of social media in public diplomacy be enhanced to strengthen Bangladesh’s image on the global stage? The key objectives of the paper include:

1. To identify key areas in which Bangladesh can effectively leverage social media in its public diplomacy efforts;

2. To examine major challenges related to the use of social media for diplomatic engagement;

3. To offer recommendations for effective use of social media in advancing Bangladesh’s public diplomacy and global outreach. 

To carry out this study, a qualitative research approach is chosen to have a deeper look at the role of social media in Bangladesh’s public diplomacy. According to the global digital report, worldwide, there are many dozens of social media platforms, and some countries have their own social media channels (e.g., China operates Weibo). To confine the scope of the research, the paper has focused solely on Facebook, given its largest user base in the country. Data analysis incorporates diverse content on Facebook, including messages, podcasts, movies, and photographs that pertain to national and strategic issues. Interviews with 15 experts7 are the primary source of data collection that provides a valuable insight into contemporary issues linked to the use of social media within the public diplomacy domain. In addition to primary data, secondary data has been used from a wide range of sources, including newspaper reports and academic publications. The major limitations of the paper lie in its thinness of empirical depth and absence of quantitative metrics (e.g., longitudinal follower growth trajectories of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), embassy accounts, comparative benchmarking with regional peers, systematic content coding of Facebook posts from MoFA and key missions, and influencer network mapping) largely due to time and resource constraints. While the paper offers a normative discussion along with a conceptual foundation, it does not empirically measure digital reach, network dynamics, or cross-platform narrative flows. However, these dimensions will be intended for future research. The paper is structured as follows: After an introduction in Section one, Section two presents an existing literature review on social media and public diplomacy. This section also draws on scholarly analyses to uncover how social media is integrated into public diplomacy strategies in other countries. Section three draws on a framework based on the concepts of Jürgen Habermas and Nancy Fraser to understand digital public diplomacy in Bangladesh. Section four discusses the potential of social media in Bangladesh’s public diplomacy. Sections five and six, respectively, address challenges and recommendations for effective use in this field. Finally, Section seven draws a conclusion.

Public Diplomacy and Social Media: Defining Key Terms Diplomacy, by and large, is a way of communication and negotiation among nations regardless of geopolitical influence. Traditionally, it is “concerned with the management of relations between states and other actors”.8 The word “public diplomacy,” distinct in meaning in the academic field, is used synonymously in terms of foreign policy and traditional diplomacy.9 The concept’s definitional ambiguity has led to its emergence as an academic discourse, with researchers in the social sciences defining it as distinctively dependent on the modes and viewpoints of communicative actors. Hence, it is quite often used as a blend of soft power and digital diplomacy to analyse how a country is viewed from the outside world. Earlier, in the 20th century, public diplomacy was largely considered as “a state-centric activity” or “one-way flow of information” in which key actors controlled the messages and acted on a limited scale.10 However, in the 21st century, it is viewed as a “two-way channel” through which actors interact more through dialogues and other forms of cooperation with foreign audiences. Its most influential and cited definitions are offered by notable scholars of International Relations (IR) and International Communication, namely Melissen, Gilboa, and Cull, who referred to the term as the diplomacy of the public by which governments and non-state actors engage with foreign publics to inform and influence international perceptions and policies. As articulated precisely by Melissen, “public diplomacy is both public and diplomatic in their use of media; and that through media they both aim at the art of influence on foreign opinions.”11 Aside from states and diplomatic ministries, the term has been widely used by non-state agencies, such as civil society organisations, multinational corporations, and influential individuals who play a pivotal role in fostering mutual understanding of other countries’ cultures and behaviours. Consequently, public diplomacy is not only confined to state-to-state interactions but also promotes deeper intercultural connections and people-to-people engagement, which cannot be managed even by the state itself. What is social media for public diplomacy? This question is relevant here since the practice of public diplomacy has undergone a significant transformation with the advent of digital technology, mostly with the rise of social media. Now, it has been a platform-based interaction in which digital tools shape or filter citizens’ narratives. In academic literature, one of the foundational definitions of social media was given by Kietzmann et al., who analyse this as a tool that “employs mobile and web-based technologies to create highly interactive platforms via which individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content.”12 That is, social media has an unprecedented impact on public diplomacy, serving as a key facilitator of international communication. This conceptual foundation draws on Marshall McLuhan, who coined the term “global village” to illustrate how technology reduces distances and connects people across the world.13 Likewise, Manuel Castells’s concept of “Global Civic Society” explains how communication technologies foster collective engagement.14 Since 2000, when blogs and other social networking platforms were used for further communication and information dissemination, social media has gained popularity as a people-to-people information-sharing method.15 It has also emerged as a valuable tool for states to engage with international stakeholders, advance national interests, and shape global narratives. Social media platforms (such as Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok) have become an essential mode of digital communication for projecting the country’s soft power sourced from culture, religion, values, ideology, etc. Most importantly, in absence of traditional diplomatic intermediaries, these tools have created a great opportunity for governments to communicate with foreign publics and disseminate critical aspects of culture.16 Such a form of digital tool has often been referred to as a crucial part of “digital diplomacy”, “virtual diplomacy”, “e-diplomacy”, “media diplomacy”, etc., which represents a greater shift towards a more inclusive engagement of public. While connecting these two terms, scholars explain the relationship in different ways and raise theoretical debates in digital public communication. Academics like Manor and Segev17 contend that digital tools–a subset of public diplomacy, facilitate two-way communication between state actors and foreign audiences. In particular, Manor’s work18 on “selfie diplomacy” and the distinction between “monologic” (one-way) and “dialogic” (interactive) digital connection, as well as applications of network theory (e.g., how Twitter or Facebook network structures affect message diffusion), are useful analytical lenses for assessing the effectiveness of contemporary digital diplomatic purposes. Cull19 outlines five core functions of public diplomacy that social media effectively supports: listening, advocacy, cultural connectivity, exchange diplomacy, and international broadcasting. Melissen,20 Seib21, and Duncombe22 note that by reducing information gaps and building trust in diplomatic messaging, platforms like Twitter and Facebook are used to provide transparent accounts of international negotiations and crisis responses. Sevin and Ingenhoff,23 and Manor24 provide empirical evidence of how networks and content of social media improve international collaborations. Before turning to Bangladesh as a specific case, it is useful to contextualise how social media works under the broader sphere of public diplomacy in other countries. 2.2 Public Diplomacy and Use of Social Media Across Countries The United States of America (USA) has been at the forefront of engaging and leveraging social media platforms in its diplomatic strategy. The US State Department predominantly uses X and Facebook to engage with global audiences, a strategy widely known as “X Diplomacy”. One prominent initiative by the government, like “AskState” exemplifies the interactive approach to digital communication, allowing direct engagement between officials and foreign citizens. Collin25, in this aspect, discusses how former President Barack Obama’s administration strategically used X to foster diplomatic relations and counter anti-American sentiments overseas. Aside from English, they used multiple languages to have more inclusive communication. During the election period and after assuming office, President Donald Trump’s frequent use of X demonstrates how social media platforms have been crucial as a diplomatic tool, especially when clarifying the state’s position on national and internal issues, and this has also been reflected in the recent Iran-US conflict. Beyond messaging, the USA promotes public diplomacy through various soft power initiatives such as organising cultural events, EducationUSA Advising programmes, English language initiatives, and enhancing a robust engagement with international alumni networks. Meanwhile, countries of the European Union (EU) have integrated social media as a part of “Strategic Digital Diplomacy”. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has effectively used social media platforms (mostly Xand Facebook) to promote European values, engage global audiences, and respond to global crises. Related to this, Bjola and Jiang26 analyse how the EU utilised X during the Ukraine crisis to counter Russian disinformation and provide transparency of diplomatic communications. The EU’s “EUvsDisinfo” campaign stands as a notable example of social media being used to combat misinformation and bolster the EU’s credibility in international discourse.27 In South Korea, “K-Pop” is intertwined with the broader framework of public diplomacy. The country has successfully used social media to spread Korean popular music to enhance its national image and build cross-cultural connections. Jin and Yoon,28 in this aspect, highlight how platforms like YouTube and X have helped K-pop groups (like BTS, BLACKPINK, and EXO) to create emotional and cultural bonds with international audiences. This phenomenon, often recognised as the “Korean Wave” (Hallyu), which is highly supported by the government to promote Korean culture, language, and tourism and position itself as a modern and globally connected nation. Similarly, China incorporated social media platforms (e.g., WeChat and Weibo) into its public diplomacy framework in advancing soft power and digital connectivity. The country has strategically used these tools to conduct public diplomacy across different countries. As Wang29 observes how Chinese diplomatic missions worldwide utilise these social media platforms to promote China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) while countering Western narratives. The collaboration with digital influencers and targeted messaging has helped China to project a favourable international image and deepen its engagement with global audiences. India, on the contrary, formalises digital public communication by promulgating digital public diplomacy initiatives via its Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). This ministry has embraced social media (especially X, Facebook, and YouTube) as a strategic communication tool and used the “India Connect” initiative to strengthen diplomatic ties and improve engagement with the Indian diaspora. Pant and Joshi30 elaborately discuss this initiative and highlight how India uses this platform to communicate its foreign policy positions, offer consular assistance, and promote its global fame. The Indian Prime Minister’s personal use of X has also been instrumental in shaping international perceptions and fostering bilateral relations. 2.3 Social Media and Bangladesh’s Public Diplomacy: Finding out Key Research Gaps Public diplomacy in Bangladesh, as outlined by MoFA, encompasses both internal and external communication functions. According to the Foreign Ministry of Bangladesh, external public diplomacy means communication with foreign publics, to project a positive national image and enhance people-to-people connectivity and counter negative narratives.31 This approach aligns well with analytical frameworks of Nye’s soft power theory (which focuses on culture, values, and foreign policy) and Habermas’s concepts of public sphere and communicative action, which highlight communicative engagement with key stakeholders.32 Internal public diplomacy, on the contrary, involves informing domestic citizens about foreign policy actions and building national consensus through the media. Although MoFA has yet to have a formal definition of social media within the context of Bangladesh’s diplomacy, it can be characterized as a state-driven, yet citizen-endorsed communication strategy designed to enhance the nation’s exposure via digital platforms. Through coordinated efforts of the Public Diplomacy Wing and embassies and missions abroad, this strategy seeks to portray the country’s development success, enhance cultural exchange, mobilise diasporas as informal ambassadors, and promote other soft power initiatives using digital tools.33 Notable examples are “branding Bangladesh” campaign, “Bangladesh @50” global celebration, and leadership in the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping and climate diplomacy.34 In this way, social media has been an indispensable component of Bangladesh’s public diplomacy strategy in contemporary times. However, during the early 1990s, use of internet and social media was minimal in the country. The adoption of digital technologies, nevertheless, began mainly in the early 2000s. 

In 2013, internet use was only 4.8 per cent, which increased to almost 38 per cent by 2022.35 Currently, 63 per cent of government agencies use this platform to communicate with the public, which reflects a shift toward a more accessible governance system. Among all the tools of social media, Facebook remains the most widely used platform, followed by YouTube and X. Moreover, by utilising these platforms, the country is trying to enhance domestic communication, diaspora engagement, and global outreach for advancing its national interests. In addition to public sector organisations, think tanks, cultural academies, and private entities alike are more pronounced in terms of utilising social media to create a positive image abroad. It has already been realised that due to a large number of youth cohorts and rapid advancement of information and communication technology (ICT), social media platforms have brought remarkable impacts among general masses of Bangladesh.36 Therefore, the government has introduced various measures to incorporate social media into the national decision-making process and improve the government’s performance across all sectors.37 Notwithstanding those initiatives, the contribution of social media in public diplomacy is very minimal. Citing the example of MoFA, it can be argued that the ministry has been found to have limited engagement (only 330,000 followers) through social media platforms.38 Moreover, it is hard to find comprehensive information on how many followers the Facebook page has for many missions. Several Bangladeshi missions including those in Manama (123,219 likes), Doha (76,043 likes), Paris (54,658 likes), and Washington maintain active Facebook pages to engage foreign public.39 In 2021, the Ministry itself joined X, but till now, it has only 85,000 followers.40 Meanwhile, its presence on YouTube is very minimal. Although the Ministry established a dedicated Public Diplomacy Wing in 2020, realising the importance, as of now, there is no specific public diplomacy framework or clear social media strategy. Parallel to this institutional gap, there is limited scholarly research on Bangladesh’s public diplomacy through social media, and to some extent, it is still In this regard, it is important to conduct research on these platforms to address the existing research gap. in a nascent and fragmented stage. Hence, as the growing importance of digital diplomacy, existing literature offers limited analysis of Bangladesh’s use of social media platforms, particularly Facebook and X as instruments of public diplomacy.

The rise and widespread adoption of social media platforms have changed the landscape of public diplomacy, which largely shapes public opinion of a country; hence, social media and public diplomacy have become interrelated notions. Both concepts have attracted scholarly attention across social science disciplines, including IR, political science, mass communication, and journalism. Scholars have identified several linkages between these two domains to better understand the evolving role of social media in public diplomacy practices. In the context of IR theories, the linkage between public diplomacy and social media is realised through the lens of soft power and constructivism. From a constructivist perspective, social media reshapes public diplomacy through cross-cultural communication, negotiation, and the creation of collective identities.41 Complementary to the constructivist approach within IR, one of the most pertinent and theoretically rich notions for understanding the interconnectedness of social media and public diplomacy is Jürgen Habermas’s “Theory of Public Sphere” along with Nancy Fraser’s critique of Habermas’s “subaltern counterpublics”.42 Jürgen Habermas–a German philosopher, is known for his critical theory of how communication and public discourse shape power, societal structure, democratic participation, and the formation of public opinion.43 In his theory of public sphere, he primarily shed light on how public opinion is shaped by rational critical debate. He imagined that earlier coffee houses and salons were appropriate spaces for debating about public affairs. Adding to this, Papacharissi and Castells emphasised digital era transformation and stated that in the contemporary digital era, online platforms (X, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) are significant avenues for public discussion and interactive discourse.44 Their primary argument is that social media has been a new form of digital public sphere where government officials, diplomats, nongovernment organisation (NGO) workers, and other relevant officials can directly engage with global audiences, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. However, Fraser argues that there is no single public sphere, but rather multiple public spheres where subordinated groups create their own narratives and identities.45 Highlighting the issue of structural inequality, she contends that digital access remains uneven as it excludes rural communities and disadvantaged groups from dominant public discourse; hence, she introduces the relative term of “subaltern counterpublics”. While discussing “rational critical debate” as a core theoretical claim, Habermas further argues that public opinion is shaped through reasoned and critical discussion within the public sphere.46 Habermas’s theory emphasises dialogic communication, which has later influenced the communication theories, specifically the “two-way communication model” in public diplomacy analysed by Grunig and Hunt. This model is pertinent since it allows people to share their ideas, values, and opinions on political matters with institutions and the state. In the domain of public diplomacy, Cull further argues that public diplomacy is not only confined to online diplomatic dialogues but also involves engaging with and making relationships with foreign audiences and embassies through live Q&A.47 These two perspectives, nonetheless, show the growing importance of people’s participation in contemporary public diplomacy. On the contrary, Fraser counters that “counterpublic” exists in

which marginalised communities create alternative communication spaces that may not intersect with official diplomatic platforms, thereby reducing inclusivity. The online discourse, as Fraser argues, often privileges only educated, urban, and elite groups, excluding marginal groups who face linguistic barriers and digital illiteracy. Habermas further elaborates his ideas through the “Theory of Communicative Action”,48 which holds crucial relevance to contemporary public diplomacy. Closely aligned with the principle of constructivist IR theory, this framework emphasises power of discourse and socially constructed nature of meaning in public interactions. For Habermas, communication does not solely mean exchanging information; it is rather a process to foster mutual understanding and reach consensus and agreements (e.g., collaborative global campaigns on climate change). According to him, power augments public diplomacy when it is coordinated and inclusive. This form of action, however, is needed to cultivate a healthy relationship in society; otherwise, coercive power will colonise communicative space. In this regard, Fraser points out structural inequality and criticises the narratives of the powerful that dominate the discourses (e.g., female is symbolically included but structurally excluded from the discussion). The distrust of dominant state narratives ultimately leads the marginal groups to develop independent communication networks. Overall, this debate prompts some pertinent questions: What is social media (particularly Facebook) meant for public diplomacy in Bangladesh? Which components, actors, and factors are linked with that process? Realising the relevance of Habermas’ theories of public sphere and communicative action, and Fraser’s subaltern counterpublics, the paper offers a framework (shown in Figure 1) for setting up the linkage between social media environment and public diplomacy for Bangladesh. First and foremost, Habermas’s ideas remain foundational in offering a valuable insight into how public opinion and its common concerns are shaped in participatory platforms like social media, which he recognised as a new form of social space.49 In particular, social media tools (e.g., Facebook) in Bangladesh are considered as a contemporary extension of digital public sphere, where broader engagement co-exists and shapes collective perspectives (from citizens, diaspora, and the government) on issues like foreign policy, elections, labour migration, etc. Second, in modern diplomatic practice, social media acts as a two-way communication channel that directly affects various government agencies (like MoFA, ICT ministry) while dealing with foreign relations (e.g., Bangladesh’s relations with India). Third, public opinion serves as a legitimate force in diplomatic practice and, therefore, in the digital world, “credibility” and “authenticity” emerge as critical dimensions. Fourth, Fraser’s crucial corrective of “subaltern counter publics” applies to Bangladesh since public sphere is not equally accessible and marginalised and rural population often have limited access to participate in digital debates. Therefore, in Bangladesh’s public diplomacy, digital platforms are intrinsically imbued with power, serving as both amplifiers and distorters. For instance, inside the Facebook-mediated public sphere, it enhances communication while simultaneously serving as a conduit for misinformation, narrative manipulation, and political control. Thus, in the evolving nature of diplomacy in the digital age, whether dialogic or propagandistic, participatory communication is crucial for shaping public diplomacy in Bangladesh. Based on this elucidation, the following Figure (Figure 1) illustrates how Habermas’s rational-critical public sphere theory helps explain Bangladesh’s public diplomacy in the digital era, by highlighting how traditional or one-way state messaging is transforming into online spaces. Certain platforms, like Facebook, provide an interactive communication channel between the state, citizens, and other relevant actors. The figure further demonstrates that public diplomacy in Bangladesh quite often operates through a digital public sphere, which facilitates two-way engagement that allows the government to share information and engage in dialogue across various audiences and regions. However, due to the presence of inequalities in access and platform algorithms, the digital public sphere does not entirely fulfil Habermas’s ideal condition. Therefore, tensions, like information vs. disinformation and inclusion vs exclusion in online space, have been the central features in Bangladesh’s online public diplomacy environment.