Wonder why it’s so easy for a politician to go from nutty fringe to moderate?

Quick thought. I was recently speaking to someone who works for a fairly outspoken politician (to say the least) who said that the politician in question is currently considering whether to communicate in a slightly more mellow manner so as to attract a different type of voter.

It’s startling how thin the line between “moderate” and “nutty fringe” can be: unless you actually are a nutty fringe politician, whether you’re seen as one or the other is largely down to how you communicate. But what’s really odd is how we as constituents are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and gloss over the past once the switch has been made. I’ll admit that I fit into that category: in 1994, Gianfranco Fini said Mussolini was the greatest statesman of the 20 century; now he’s changed his tone and is a reasonable centrist who speaks some sense amongst the throng of crude and worthless populists that make up the Italian ruling majority – and I believe him.

What a great benefit to politicians looking to make the grade though. Whether of the left or of the right, they can cause a stir amongst “party bases” by stating their position in the most outlandish terms possible, then repackage themselves as a more moderate force once they have a following and a media presence  (i.e. saying the same things just in a more conciliatory tone and with less gesticulation.) Hey presto, they attract a different breed of supporter virtually from one day to the next! Wish it were that easy for the rest of us.

Are NGOs still the eCampaign benchmark?

The story goes that NGOs were able to mobilise support and spread their message online over a decade ago, when the corporates they were up against barely had any web presence to speak of. This is cited as one of the reasons for their ascendancy in the political power game.

How are they faring these days? This is by no means a long analytical piece: I haven’t combed through hundreds of NGO sites from which I’ll cite dozens of examples; but in short, my general feeling is that NGOs aren’t as effective online as they used to be. To some extent, it’s probably their fault. Some have amazing stories – especially from the field – but are not using social media as well as they could to tell them. Sometimes they use the tools but not in an integrated manner e.g. offline campaigns aren’t backed up online and vice-versa. Big NGOs are often too split along country or regional lines: rather than sharing material across platforms they’re keeping it separate, which is pointless as well as detrimental. Also, some of these same big-time NGOs have sites that are far too pristine and corporate-looking. Meanwhile, others have crammed too much into their toolkit, meaning that they do a little of everything badly rather than a few things well; and others, especially small-time single issue pressure groups, are not using cheap and cheerful tools nearly as much as they should (although I hasten to add that some do!)

To some extent, their loss of the best practice mantle is not really their doing. With their mammoth budgets, their corporate adversaries have played catch-up very well by developing credible CSR programmes and hiring smart agencies that do great communications online, with plenty of effective social media in the mix and winning the search-ranking battle.

Having said that all that, the spirit of the NGO is alive and well, and their message is stronger than ever. However, it’s not necessarily them that’s delivering it. Firstly, “regular folk” are often more militant than most NGOs nowadays, and they’re very active online in forums, blogs etc. I did a little bit of research last week in response to a report from the Food Standards Agency in the UK which claims that organic is no healthier than regular produce, and was astonished to see how many people with no affiliation to official groups were taking a stand against the FSA. And they were pretty angry. Secondly, corporations themselves are making noise about the sort of issues only NGOs seemed interested in until recently.

Conclusion? Having mobilised people to such an extent over the last 10 or 20 years to the point where they have actually radically altered the common man’s sensibilities over a range of issues and leading ultimately to far more responsibility in corporate-land (as well as politico-land of course) is no doubt a great triumph and impressive legacy. It probably might not seem to matter so much that they’re not good with Twitter: that’d be taking a myopic view of the global challenges we still face and which they can contribute to. Still, I think they should brush up a little online.

Reaching a legislator before and now

A few months ago, I posted a simple diagram to highlight that organisations should not overlook the importance of being able to communicate directly to their audiences. I’ve taken that diagram a little further to show how tactics to reach legislators have developed  in the age of the Internet.

The two key elements that are different now are: 1) being able to reach legislators via content and search i.e. organisation X publishes on its website, blogs, posts a release on an eWire etc. and a legislator picks it up via Google; and 2) the main indirect influencer i.e. the press via media relations has now expanded to include all sorts of other influencers e.g. bloggers, while far more people can become engaged in political activism that might influence legislators (online advocacy via communities, ePetitions and so on.)

Any thoughts? Have I missed anything?

What’s wrong with Berlusconi (2)

Most of this is in line with What’s wrong with Berlusconi take 1 (my very first blog post) but priorities have changed a little and I wanted to be a tad more concise (just a tad.) Here goes.

1. He compromises the rule of law

I won’t get into the details (the trials, Mills, Dell’Utri, Previti, Mangano, riling against magistrates, stating that Mani Pulite damaged Italy et. al.) Why is it an issue though? Call me crazy, but I think the rule of law is the cornerstone of a thriving society (don’t most people?) and should be totally sacrosanct. The most ardent Berlusconi supporter will argue that he’s never been convicted. I’d argue that he has been convicted (albeit then later cleared by the statute of limitations or laws rushed through by his government e.g. decriminalising false accounting) and that for a man who is on top of the food chain that is more than enough to call it a day. Why? Italians are suspicious of the law in the best of cases, but having a shady Prime Minister who treats the law with disdain only encourages the worst Italian traits. Beyond it being morally questionable, it’s damaging. It implies that the law is just another obstacle to be overcome and propagates a culture of mistrust, poor business practice, of tax evasion and of dodging responsibility. It says to the Italian shop-keeper and local councillor,  “if he doesn’t, why should I?” And it damages an already ailing business environment which does all it can to discourage investment. In an era of globalisation and global supply chains, this is perilous to say the least (more on this in point 3.)

2. He compromises democracy

Yes, that old chestnut. Again, call me crazy, but I think democracy is another cornerstone of a flourishing society. A few other people (Aristotle for starters) do a far better job of explaining why democracies thrive than I ever could, but who can argue with the tenets of democracy as a means for ensuring a fair and balanced society, equality before the law, a means for personal progress and fulfilling ambition, as well as a mechanism for expressing discontent?

But is democracy really under threat in Italy? Berlusconi’s supporters would say no, and they’d be right in that a semblance of democracy is nowhere near calling it a day in Italy. If we look a little deeper however, that’s where the cracks start appearing. How? First, Berlusconi does not act as if he feels accountable i.e. he does not see the need to respond to concerns and criticisms e.g. note his refusal to speak to members of the press who have criticised him. Second, laws designed to protect him from prosecution would indicate the he has no qualms about using office for personal ends. Third, the conflict of interest inherent in governing while owning TV channels and other news outlets shows scant regard for the separation of individual interests from political power which should be a hallmark of democracy.

As a result, I think Berlusconi’s leadership seems to illustrate that one individual can get ahead with whatever means possible; it promotes the power of the individual over the strength of the collective and its institutions. Similarly, it promotes conflict and strongman tactics over consensus; and politics as a means for personal advancement and protection rather than collective well-being. In short, a mild form of authoritarianism rather than a bustling, fair and open democracy where everyone starts at level pegging. Does it mean Italy will end up like Putin’s Russia? Hardly, but I think it will mean it will take a lot longer for Italians to view democracy, pluralism and accountability as sacred covenants to cherish and protect, as is the case in most other rich democracies.

3. He is not even trying to fix the economy

OK so rule of law and democracy and that sort of bla might seem a bit fluffy to some. Perhaps, if it were the case that Berlusconi’s government was extremely efficient in bringing about the sort of wholesale reform Italy needs. Yet despite two massive mandates, there is still no serious plan in place to liberalise, privatise and cut red tape. The situation is utterly desperate. Even before this year’s crisis, Italy’s economy had been at a virtual standstill for six years. Italy ranks alongside the likes of Ghana in competitiveness, public debt is unmanageable, foreign investment is minimal, innovation is non-existent and a massive brain-drain continues unabated while no Italian university makes the top 150 in to world. However, no serious steps have been taken to reverse any of this; even the centre-left did more to liberalise and reduce debt in two years (2006-08) than Berlusconi had managed in the five previous years and since. And it’s such a wasted opportunity, given the size of his mandate and the fact that his electorate is of the centre-right and thus probably wouldn’t argue if he were to try to make it easier to start a business, promote competitiveness via tax incentives or cut some red tape. He could be Italy’s Thatcher and yet he appears happy to simply stay in power for the sake of power. Perhaps his interests are in his own business and legal status rather than that of the country? Or maybe he just doesn’t have the vision or ability?

4. His role in making Italy nastier

This might seem trite, but it really grates. Italy has traditionally been a friendly place: family and community values, helping thy neighbour, caring for the old and young have always been highly valued. And they remain so, but my sense is that Italy is becoming a nastier place and it’s wholly avoidable. How does Berlusconi fit in? First, by legitimising the Lega Nord by bringing them into his coalition. They should be a fringe party – a party of thugs like the BNP and the Front National – but instead they’re a mainstream party which get to sponsor laws that allow vigilante groups onto the streets and ensure long prison sentences for illegal immigrants. I’m grossly simplifying a complex issue: the Lega Nord hasn’t just thrived because Berlusconi has embraced them; indeed, most of their supporters are disappointed and disavowed lefities. However, fact of the matter remains that Berlusconi brought them into his coalition, and worst, lets them call plenty of shots. Second, he promotes the traditional left vs. right schism that has been inherent in Italy for years. In fact he milks it: his rhetoric is angry and hateful. Opponents, all of whom are grouped as “the left” are openly and viciously attacked at every given opportunity, be it the press, judges or hecklers at a rally. This has helped cement a condition of us vs. them which is reflected all the way down to every dinner table or bar in Italy. Ever seen a Berlusconi supporter and opponent battle it out over a coffee? It’s not a pretty sight.

5. He is dumbing down political debate

The last point leads nicely onto this. I find that Berlusconi is dumbing down political discourse no end by reducing everything to us vs. them. Anyone who criticises him is a leftie. Or a Communist, or jealous, or an idiot. Or even anthropologically different(!) This has been taken to the extreme. Even the foreign press, be it the FT, the Economist or the Times, are supposedly part of a conspiracy to denigrate him. Please! It’s not real politics; it’s populism, or lowest-denominator politics, and it’s not healthy. It simply means that political debate always gets reduced to whether you support Berlusconi or not, rather than being about the topics that really matter.  Big, global, epoch-defining, tough issues are never discussed because everything gets reduced to a popularity contest or an attempt to argue that you’re not a Stalinist if you think the government could do more to encourage liberalisation (note the irony.) It’s smart in a way, as it means he never actually has to discuss anything of substance or answer his critics. The centre-left holds plenty of responsibility here as it too has failed in the last few years to build a grand-scale project, focusing instead on an ‘anyone but Berlusconi’ programme which clearly hasn’t worked.

____________________________________________________________

There are other things I could have included .

• His control of the media. Yes, it’s a disgrace (and embarrassing that Freedom House has Italy in the ‘partly free’ category), but there’s still enough of a free media to allow for heated debate.
• The call-girl furore. Yes, it’s wholly inappropriate, but I don’t really care that much.
• The misogyny? Yes, it’s not good to forward showgirls’ careers and all, but talented women can still get ahead in Berlusconi’s Italy, so it won’t make the top 5.
• He’s a polarising figure? Yes, but so are the others and Italians have always been polarised.
• His role in making Italy a whole lot trashier? Debatable. He’s a symptom rather than a cause, I’d say (although he’s certainly an accelerator.)
• Foreigners who ask “how in the name of God can you keep electing him?!” Sure, it’s annoying and a tad embarrassing, but I’ll live, and it won’t take long for a decent successor – left or right – to have eclipsed his memory.
• The fact that his habit of appointing stooges means Italy is poorly represented at the negotiating table at international level in many key areas? Certainly, but not a top-5 contender given that Italy has always played 2nd fiddle.
• He’s a poor role model? Yes, but in some respects he’s also a good role model (self-made man, ambitious, hard-working) gone astray and who is doing what many Italians have done before, just on a far grander scale. No excuse I hear? Perhaps, but it does mean this falls just outside the top 5.

The Berlusconi supporter checklist…

… is getting shorter! Being in and out of court for 20 years, changing the statute of limitations on crimes he was being prosecuted for, legalising false accounting when being charged for it, associates being convicted of bribery and mafia collusion, the gaffes, the conflicts of interest, and general ineptitude hadn’t made a difference before! A lawyer being convicted for taking a massive bribe from him a month ago? Nope, not a chance. But “consorting with minors”, flying showgirls to his house in official planes, photos of men in a “state of arousal” (the former Czech Prime-Minister no less) and half-naked women lounging about on his estate, and accusations that women were paid to attend his soirees seem to have finally made a dent in the Italian consciousness!

So much so that we can just about check the following off the aforementioned supporter list:

• Catholics who see him as the heir apparent to the Christian-Democrats (who don’t vote for their real heirs because they’re now a minority party.)
• Voters who like him because they think he is an honest, self-made man who speaks his mind, and is thus a little bit more like them than your archetypal politician.

That leaves us with:

• Right-wingers who will vote centre-right no matter what happens because the filthy Commie scourge will surely turn Italy into a pseudo-Stalinist state!
• Right-wingers who strongly support other factions of the centre-right and don’t see any other  option (some of these are the most reasonable people on this list; surely they can’t be happy – wish they’d kick up more a fuss.)
• Obsessive “Berlusconiani” who could witness him knife someone on live TV and still claim the Commies did it. They love Berlusconi because he’s unstatesmanlike, dodgy and a skirt-chaser, and the more trouble he gets into, the happier they’ll be.
• People who watch more than 3 hours of his TV channels daily and thus think he’s Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, your superhero of choice and Don Giovanni rolled into one.
• Tax evaders who know a centre-right government under Berlusconi will turn a blind eye to their activities.
• People in the south who are told who to vote for.

That’s still about 90% of the Berlusconi electorate. Darnit. We haven’t got a hope in hell.

UPDATE: Not so sure about this one… but how about swarms of young Italian women who dream of being showgirls and hope Berlusconi might show up at their birthday party?! The now 18-year-old at the heart of the “minors” scandal said she’d either want to be in politics or be a showgirl on telly. Imagine that. Starry-eyed girls elsewhere in the world dream of being popstars or models, but in Italy, it’s getting your knorks out on telly while sleazy old men patronise you OR being in politics. Politics has been reduced to showbiz. Parties at the PM’s place. Laughs, cash and fancy cars. Unbelievable!

EP elections: parties get your acts together!

I’m not an expert on the minutiae of European politics – for more in-depth analysis of the elections I’d recommend proper Euroblogs like Julien Frisch, The European Citizen, Nosemonkey and Grahnlaw – but there’s one “layman’s” observation I would make.

Low turnouts and the success of a number of unsavoury fringe parties (as well as the failure of the centre-left to make up ground on the centre-right despite the financial crisis “gift”) is likely going to be blamed in some smug quarters on a cynical media and stupid and/or gullible voters. Or if not that, on the fact that voters have become too individualistic to care about serious politics and wider community matters.

But what about the failure of many mainstream parties – especially those on the centre-left – to offer voters a real sense that they offer a helping hand in trying times? I think that’s far more critical. Sure, the media may be a tad cynical, but have entire electorates suddenly gone dim-witted? Hardly. Have we all turned into materialistic egomaniacs? Maybe, but I doubt charity donations would be at an all time high if that were so. Perhaps it’s fair to say that it’s not an easy time to be a political party. People don’t vote along party lines like they used to (largely because social class does not matter much anymore in political terms) while there aren’t that many issues on which parties can really stand out seeing as they all pretty much straddle the middle ground.

Nonetheless, it’s certainly the case that plenty of Europeans feel utterly estranged from political parties . What should they do about it? For a start, try to be more representative and not appear so detached; be less dismissive and most of all to be more communicative. It means surveying constituents and acting on results. And as an advocate for all things online, I’d say more than anything it means members of parties communicating online directly with their constituents and making it an absolute priority to engage in daily dialogue even if it takes up a sizable chunk of working hours.

And if that fails? More proportional representation and direct democracy perhaps, but that opens up a whole new kettle of fish.

Why is Berlusconi acceptable?

I recently hinted that I would not write about Berlusconi quite so much anymore, but given the week’s events, I couldn’t help myself.

With the incessant run-ins with the law, using office to stave off prosecution, the gaffes, the showgirls, the conflicts of interest, meddling with the press, and convictions of his closest associates for mafia collusion and bribery, some people (outside of Italy especially) might ask themselves how Italians deem him an acceptable Prime-Minister.

Just this week we’ve had the following: the report of the conviction of David Mills, a British lawyer, was published, showing in no uncertain terms that he’d been bribed by Silvio Berlusconi; calls by Berlusconi (for the umpteenth time) to reduce Parliament’s powers and to increase his own; and an attempt to appoint firm supporters to all top posts at the national broadcaster, RAI. Not to mention his stating that no Italian could be guaranteed a fair trial because left-wing extremists run the magistrature. Or telling the head of the Italian Employers’ Federation (a big deal in Italy) who had just implored his government to actually bring about serious reform, that she could be a showgirl..! There’s actually more (the ongoing saga of the 18 year old’s birthday bash, estrangement from his wife over the same 18 year old and selecting showgirls to run for the European elections, as well as continual furious claims that the centre-left press is leading a sickening and immoral campaign against him…) and that’s just this week!

UPDATE: Good article in the FT on Berlusconi.

The question is, why is he acceptable to so many Italian voters, who are otherwise decent, law-abiding citizens? Probably a mishmash of the following:

1. They don’t care

In some cases, it’s about values. Plenty of Italians simply couldn’t care less that he’s shady or that he denigrates parliament, the magistrates, the press and so forth, because broader societal values such as the sacrosanct nature of democracy, the rule of law and freedom of the press simply aren’t as strong in Italy as in other democracies. Individual, family and close-community values are on the other hand much stronger, so in some ways Berlusconi is just doing what’s normal – looking out for his lot – the natural order of things. In this respect he is actually more at risk of losing support because he’s getting divorced and fools around with young girls than anything else.

Could people not care because they think he’s competent, and that this is far more important than any pesky legal trouble or some ill-timed jokes?! Yes, some people think he’s done a great job, and would have done an even better job if only the left had let him(!) In their view, he keeps immigrants off the streets, a couple of education reforms have been deemed decent by some, he got piles of rubbish cleared off the streets of Naples, and he responded somewhat well to the disaster in l’Aquila. There’s a few more. And a lot of promises which people still hope he’ll carry out. You may ask yourself if this is enough given his two massive mandates, but each to his own.

MEPs online: survey

Fleishman-Hillard published the results of their EP Digital Trends Survey earlier this week, exploring European Parliamentarians’ use of the web from two perspectives: first, their own actual outgoing communications; and second, their use of the web as a research and learning tool.

The figure which most stood out for me is that 93% of MEPs use search engines every day. That many of these then go on to claim they do not read blogs doesn’t really matter. I doubt many would discard a good blog that appears top of the search rankings (maybe they wouldn’t even identify it as a blog..?) Further proof (as if any were needed) that organisations should make good quality online content (and a search strategy) core elements of their communications.

Some observations on other findings in the report:

• “62% of MEPs have either never heard of Twitter or have no plans to use it” – Wonder if any respondents both said they’d never heard of it AND thus wouldn’t dream of using it. Hope not.
• “80% of MEPs believe websites to be either very effective or effective in communicating to voters, making websites as effective as one-on-one meetings” – So 1 in 5 still don’t think websites work? Not surprising, but I had hoped this might have been more like 1 in 20. I’ll always remember the MEP who last year told me that he “didn’t believe in the Internet” but I thought the Obama effect would have changed that sort of attitude to a greater extent.
• “51% of MEPs believe blogging or micro-blogging to be very effective or effective in communicating to voters” – Considering how alien blogging still is to many, this is a good figure. Hope it’ll be more like 90% come 2014. Communicating in you own voice directly to your constituents, for free, whenever you want and wherever you have an Internet connection? What’s not to love?

Italians must have amnesia

It’s been a while since my latest Berlusconi rant. Here goes (apologies – am stretching the “personal blog” mantra and presumably alienating readers, but feels good to get things off my chest once in a while. Normal service will resume ASAP.)

Before: Following the corruption trials of 1992-94, Berlusconi says he’ll stand for office so as to bring a new lease of life to Italian politics after the shameful antics of the political classes over many years.

After: Berlusconi says the magistrates who brought corrupt politicians to trial had caused great harm to Italy.

Before: Berlusconi says he was never a paying member of the P2 masonic lodge, which was implicated in all manner of crimes from bribing politicians to murdering political “enemies.”

After: Berlusconi’s membership receipt was found.

Before: Berlusconi goes on TV to sign a “contract” with the Italian people in 2001 claiming that he’d never stand for office again if he failed to honour at least four of five pledges in the contract.

After: He honoured one of five pledges. He never mentions the “contract” and stands again in 2006.

Before: Berlusconi gets around legal issues surrounding his ownership of the comically pro-Berlusconi national daily, Il Giornale, by selling it to his brother. The paper (not to mention his weeklies and TV channels) remain comically pro-Berlusconi.

After: Berlusconi says the centre-left has too much control of left-wing newspapers.

Before: Berlusconi says he won’t discuss his pending divorce in public as it’s a private matter.

After: A few days later he goes on the most watched talk-show in Italy to talk about his divorce.

I’ll update this post when I think of more..

UPDATES:

Before: In 1997, Berlusconi cries when Albanians trying to enter Italy by ship are sent back and says he’ll put them up in his homes (the centre-left was in power.)

After: Sheds no tears when a Libyan ship is turned back in 2009. His government is in the process of passing stringent anti-immigration laws that flout EU human rights laws and the Geneva convention. Says he does not believe in a multi-ethnic Italy. Says walking the streets of Milan is like being in Africa.

Before: Shows up at 18 year old showgirl wannabe’s birthday party and says he knows the family because the girl’s father was Craxi’s chauffeur in the 1980s.

After: Turns out the man wasn’t Craxi’s chaffeur but Berlusconi says he never claimed he was although a string of journalists confirmed that he did.

Before: Says he had not met the wannabe showgirl before her 18th birthday party.

After: Photos from before of her at the Milan football club dinner prop up. In addition, it appears the girl was one of 30 or so young girls who spent a week at Berlusconi’s Sardinian villa around New Year’s 2008. The girl’s mother confirmed this.

Before: A convicted mafioso lives at Berlusconi’s for two years in the 1970s and his closest ally and co-founder of  Forza Italia, Marcello Dell’Utri, is convicted of mafia collusion.

After: Berlusconi says he wants the mantle of the man who defeated the mafia to be his legacy.

Before: Berlusconi cracks down on prostitution, in particular targeting those who pay for their services.

After: A prostitute who is annoyed that Berlusconi did not follow up on his promise to help her obtain building permits records and releases a conversation she had with him where they allude to intimate relations they are about to have. A man in Bari is questioned over providing prostitutes for parties hosted by Berlusconi. A string of women confirm that they were paid to attend parties at Berlusconi’s home.

Social media and customer service: would it work with issues?

I’ve been reading about how social media is transforming customer service for a while now (came across this article on Econsultancy about this very topic today) and am wondering to what extent the same approach is viable when it comes to regulatory issues and the like in Brussels.

Here’s the gist of how social media has been impacting customer service:

1. Disgruntled customer complains about a company’s product on Twitter (or whatever.)
2. Company has a social media monitoring set-up and picks it up.
3. Company responds to customer in blog comment, directly, on Twitter etc. in calm and measured way, apologising and offering a solution of some sort.
4. Customer is happy, says so, others who have followed conversation are impressed.

Is this a lot of work on just one customer? It might not have been in the past because people’s word of mouth networks were limited, but now, individuals can potentially reach millions of other online users, so listening and responding to single customers can have a massive positive knock-on effect. A company that is seen to be engaging and looking out for its customers becomes highly valued and the story can spread online. Plus if bad reviews are simply left to fester they too can spread untouched and even reach the top of search rankings so that people who search for a company or its products online might come across a blog entry slating it amongst the first few items. Bottom line is it’s good for the company.

What if the same approach were adopted by companies and other organisations who communicate on issues in Brussels or elsewhere? Online conversations are increasingly shaping public opinion and it’s the job of good communicators to tap into them and try to help to shape and shift the debate. What if, say, company X produces “nasty chemical Y” which people are writing about on Twitter or their blogs, expressing concern, and company X were to respond saying something along the lines of: “We accept and understand your concern. We’re trying to do our bit. The University of Z has issued a report which relates to your concern. Might be of interest? Here’s the link.”

It’s tricky, but I think it could be work as part of a long-term strategy aimed at tapping into the right conversations, nipping concerns at the bud, and slowly shifting the debate online.

However, I’d make sure the following guidelines were adopted and scrupulouslty adhered to:

• Humility at all times!
• Don’t use corporate gobbledygook but communicate like you would with a normal person.
• Always keep in mind that what you say might spread, so make sure it’s appropriate to multiple audiences.
• If you’re providing material, try to use third-party content whenever possible: far more credible than your pretty brochure.
• Don’t interact with nutjobs. For some individuals and in particular single-issue pressure groups, their issue goes beyond concern for people and the environment etc. It’s an obsession and they’ll never ever be convinced by your arguments. If you try to communicate with them directly they might use it against you in some way. Do interact with people who are concerned but don’t have all the facts.
• Be proactive as well as reactive: make it part of broader social media approach i.e. don’t just, say, respond on Twitter to people who are concerned about your issue, but also communicate independently. Otherwise it’ll just look like damage limitation rather than serious engagement.

One explanation for the many shady politicians in Italy

Learning from Obama: Labour and Tories online

Thomas Gensemer, a consultant who worked on Barack Obama’s online strategy during his campaign for the Presidency, talks about Labour’s and the Tories’ online offerings in this short clip.

The two key elements to take away are:

1. The need to be authentic and have something to say: it’s not about the technology (it never is) but how it allows you to share a message or contribute to a conversation. This is a lesson for anyone engaging in political, advocacy and other communications online: don’t do Twitter (or whatever) because everyone else is on it; do it if you’ve got something interesting to share, can fit it within your wider communications and remain coherent, and appear eager and honest (let others be the judge of this).
2. Limited focus on mobilisation of activists and other supporters. The Obama campaign worked because it made it really easy for people to create, share and spread material; to find and arrange events, and so on. This got people excited and provided the Obama campaign with scores of highly active volunteers. However, Labour and the Tories still aren’t making it really easy for their supporters to engage and get involved. As Gensemer puts it: it isn’t easy to find “5 things to do” on the sites, although all the elements are there somewhere. They should be the centrepieces of the sites however, not an afterthought.

Obama: not losing the online momentum

Yet another Obama and the web post. Zzzzzzz. Many apologies, but the subject matter is too good to let go.

Much has been said about the positioning of the blog on the White House website. It’s right there, in first place in the first submenu (see image). It’s nothing more than a symbolic gesture however as the blog only informs and does not do what a “real” blog does (engagement via comments or trackbacks, references to other blogs etc.) And I understand that: their blog is for information purposes only; the White House can’t suddenly start blogging as if they were a political commentator, it’d be ridiculous, inappropriate, totally out of their remit, time-consuming and bound to get out of hand.

No, what really shows that the Obama administration gets the web is what’s still going on on barackobama.com. In addition to an exceptional candidate, the success of the campaign for the Presidency was based on two factors which were both web-enabled: 1) mammoth donations; and 2) mobilisation of supporters.

The latter is still taking place via the site, as people can meet likeminded supporters, organise events, find events near them, all via the site. That’s what makes it special: it’s not the fancy web gimmicks, it’s the grassroots mobilisation on the ground that’s being enabled simply by making the logistics easier. Seems basic, but it’s pretty revolutionary in a sense: everyone had assumed that people were too busy and politically apathetic to engage in participatory politics, but that was plain wrong – all they needed was a leader to rally around and the organisational aspect taken care of somewhat.

What’s more, the Democrats are now being far-sighted enough to build on the momentum from the campaign by keeping it going rather than resting on their laurels. Good for them.

Moral freefall

A law was passed in the Italian senate today that permits doctors to denounce illegal immigrants to the authorities. It might not pass, as it may be deemed unconstitutional, but so what, the damage is done. There is really no benefit whatsoever to this law, whatever way you look at it. It’s not going to do reduce the number of illegal immigrants in Italy, it’s just going to make them less healthy (and presumably the Italians who come into contact with them).

This is about appearing tough, laying down the law, showing that the administration means business when it says it’ll clean up the streets. But frankly the message to me sounds more like: we’re so intolerant that we’re going to pass a measure that will mean fellow human beings will not seek medical treatment for fear of being deported. Lovely. In fact, it’ll probably make things worse: it’ll put off real reform, while the damage to community relations will surely be far more costly than than the few illegal immigrants who happen to be troublemakers and end up in the surgery of a GP who reports them (and I suspect that there won’t be many). In any case, which illegal immigrant is more likely to be so desperate for medical treatment as to risk it: the 22 year-old purse-snatcher or the mother who is concerned that her baby has caught something life-threatening (probably brought on from living in appalling conditions?)

This really is deplorable. Italy has been in recession for nigh on two years, massive structural reform is required to fix it (although the credit crunch has given politicians a good excuse), infrastructure is in tatters, there’s no Italian university amongst the top 150 in the world, fewer Italian women occupy important positions in business or politics than any other developed country, and so on and so on. And yes, there is no immigration policy. Yet the administration seems hell-bent on populist gestures like this one rather than rolling up its sleeves and getting to work.

I won’t say I’m surprised, although it’s still disappointing. It’s all part of a string of developments under this administration that halts progress that little bit more. There are hiccups in most countries. People can become a bit less tolerant and worse off during times of difficulty, but by and large, social progress has been pretty constant in most places around the world. More people are getting an education, the gap between rich and poor is diminishing, women are breaking through the glass ceiling, minorities are increasingly tolerated, while the rule of law and respect for others’ rights gets stronger.

Not in Italy. The prime minister, with a string of convictions behind him and who spent his previous five years in power trying to get them quashed (it helps when you manage to reduce the statute of limitations on one crime you’ve been convicted of and to de-criminalise another), hardly leads by example. Nor does an administration that has reduced spending on education and R&D or that hires 32 year old showgirls as ministers. But the Lega Nord, who proposed and sponsored this new law, really are the worst of the bunch. A posse of populist, ignorant, narrow-minded, vile little men who try to impose their pathetic bigotry on the rest of the country. And lo and behold, it seems to be working.

Right, rant over: rational and impartial (and relevant) hat comes back on tomorrow.

Obamamania

I probably shouldn’t be writing about Obama: my expertise lies elsewhere and so much has been written already (460,000 posts mentioning Obama in the last day, according to Google Blog Search). But sod it, I’m as excited as the next person and it’s my blog.

Some thoughts:

• I liked the slip-ups when he was being sworn in: saying “I Barack Hussein Obama…” a little too soon and then stalling a few moments later. Being so accustomed to the impeccable delivery and unwavering confidence, it was refreshing and endearing to see him be so nervous.
• Great that he highlighted science in his speech following 8 years in which it’s been maligned.
• His constant references to the founding fathers is interesting. I guess he does it for a number of reasons: it’s an effective rhetorical device that gets people proud and excited, the founding fathers are revered and he wants to portray himself as an heir, and it sets the bar for the changes he wants to bring about. And perhaps because it “americanises” him in the eyes of the oddballs who don’t think he’s American enough? Why do European politicians hardly ever mention their countries’ glorious past and ancestors? Some reasons might be a political culture that’s a little less sensationalist, a more cynical electorate, and too many instances in most countries’ histories that can’t really be omitted but that nobody wants to talk about, so it’s best to just ignore history all-together.
• There’s been lots of talk of sky-high expectations and the impossibility of solving all the problems in Obama’s “IN tray”. The insinuation being that many will be disappointed when Obama doesn’t manage to bring peace to the Middle East, solve the financial crisis, and reverse global warming in his first month in office. I’m not so sure. First, people aren’t dumb: they understand the extent of the troubles we’re facing. Second, he’s got so much goodwill to spare. Third, the nature of the man and his style is such that I doubt much blame will be able to stick: he’s surrounded himself with the best and the brightest, he’s a pragmatist, and he’s non-partisan. Combined I think it’ll mean that once it becomes apparent that he isn’t solving all the world’s ills in his lunch-break, most people’s response will be that he’s doing OK, and probably better than anyone else could, given the circumstances.
• No post on Obama is complete without a reference to the web (in particular when the blogger in question works in online communications). As reported on Public Affairs 2.0, the first post on the new White House blog appeared at 12.01 last night! The implicit message being: we still take this web stuff seriously.

The automotive industry and the importance of embracing change

I caught a few minutes of a show on TV this afternoon (sorry, no reference) comparing the state of the US and Japanese automotive industries and tracing it back to 1993, when Al Gore led a government-funded initiative to develop environmentally friendlier cars. During the Clinton administration, $1.5 billion was poured into this initiative, but American car manufactures opposed it very strongly throughout and set the following conditions:

• It would be entirely government-funded
• They did not have to produce anything, simply show that they’d done the research

In the end, shock horror, nothing came of it: they did some research but continued to focus most of their attention and production on very profitable, petrol-guzzling SUVs and pick-up trucks. However, Japanese manufacturers, Honda and Toyota in particular, were a lot more concerned by Gore’s initiative, assuming (correctly, as it turns out) that this was only the start of a process of government demanding that industry start paying heed to environmental concerns. Without any government funding whatsoever, they conducted their own research into developing cars that were less damaging to the environment, resulting in the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid, while GM et al. carried on churning out their SUVs.

Fast-forward fifteen years, and the state of affairs couldn’t be more different. The credit crunch has hit, oil prices are fluctuating wildly, and many citizens are concerned about climate change and want to do their bit. Combined result? GM, Ford and Chrysler may go bust, while Toyota and Honda and holding up reasonably well, and certainly have a lot more sympathisers than the US behemoths. If they manage to survive, the US manufacturers are now clearly going to have to start playing catch-up and they’ll be cursing themselves for not grasping the opportunity back in the stable 90s, when they had the time and resources to develop both the relevant products and the goodwill of consumers.

Lesson? Yet again, that industry (not just automotive) should stop thinking that concerns regarding the environment (or health for that matter) are a passing fad that will go away. Rather than being opposed to radical change, industry should study societal developments and try to be one step ahead of the game by accepting that there is a price to pay and trying to be part of the solution. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it invariably turns out to be commercially viable down the line. Just look at Toyota and Honda.

Berlusconi and understanding NGOs

I work on some issues where the NGOs involved are so seething with rage that I frankly find them a bit frightening. This is in no way belittling them or what they believe in, and I acknowledge that most people who work for NGOs are entirely rational, but what amazes me is that some of them can feel so strongly about their side of the story to think that the other side (polluters etc.) are downright wicked, or that their cause is a moralistic crusade of good versus evil.

Then I read that Silvio Berlusconi said last week that the magistrates behind Mani Pulite, the series of cases in 1992-94 against politicians who were found guilty of such extents of corruption that it makes the mind boggle, had ended 50 years of progress and well-being. Scores of politicians were found with billions of lire in off-shore accounts, instances of gross mafia collusion were uncovered, and yet he rubbishes all of this to support yet another diatribe against the magistrates.

What am I getting at? That the utterly unreserved and all-embracing disdain I feel for Berlusconi must match that of the aforementioned NGO campaigners. This helps me understand their passion and motivation, and will probably make me better at my job i.e. make me a more effective communicator.

Left trumps right in EU web initiatives

The Party of European Socialists’ brave and seemingly successful foray into the world of Web 2.0 with the Yourspace blog remains by far the most impressive web initiative I’ve seen by any European party or political group. Why is it so good? It’s a platform aimed at galvanising active supporters, not one where party bigwigs can strut their stuff: it gives them space to write and engage, and promises them something concrete in return – a chance to influence the content of the PES manifesto for the 2009 European elections. Result? Very Obama’esque: excited, active supporters, eager and able to help spread the PES mantra (aided by Yourspace’s multiple outreach channels e.g. a YouTube channel and very active Facebook Group).

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PSE) have not been quite as daring, but they do have a section on their site entitled Interactive which contains posts by PSE members, a portal of blogs by PSE members who do not write on the site itself, a forum, and a so-called citizen’s room where people can submit their opinions. The tools are all relevant and I’m especially impressed by this one line from their terms and conditions (assuming it’s true): “The Socialist Group interactive pages are an area for free expression. Only views that are ethically and legally unacceptable are excluded”. However, the section has been hidden away and is not properly introduced. For it to really work, the PSE should make a real splash, sell it on their homepage and in all their other outgoing communications, and explain why they’re doing it e.g. we want to speak directly to you, we need to know where we stand with you, like out parent party, the PES, we want to promote your ideas and concerns, not our own; and so on.

The site of the EPP-ED (the centre-right political group of the European Parliament) is far more static and dull. They present positions, latest press releases and members (Zzzzzz), while the only remotely innovative feature is the online “TV” channel. I did a search on YouTube, where the EEP-ED also have a channel,which appears to show the exact same footage even though there is no link between it and their site. It’s not bad, but I have some objections:

• Why have the channel in two places? Seems like totally pointless duplication.
• It’s all one way. Comments are allowed on both channels, but the moderators are obviously very strict. The only comment on the YouTube channel homepage itself reads “Just wanted to say that you’re doing really good job there” while none of the videos I saw had any comments (even where there were 100s of views). Same on the other channel: I had to look really hard to find one video with a couple of comments.

This approach seems to reflect the French Presidential elections last year, when Sarkozy’s campaign site became little more than a video vault, while Segolene Royal’s approach was far more inclusive. Sure, he won the election, but as Obama’s triumph last month showed, an approach which embraces the web as a tool of engagement and mobilisation, rather than just another one-way broadcast medium where you show yourself in your best light, can work wonders. In an era where the electorate demands a voice, politicians need to show that they’re listening and care; and the best start is to provide a platform where you allow people to openly engage and then actually respond.

Is the left more open to new tools and politics of engagement because it fits their political philosophy? To some extent I do think they are more comfortable with open engagement with constituents, but the main reason why the left on both sides of the pond has been quicker to adopt new tools is clearly born out of need, seeing as the centre-right has held power in the US and most European countries (and thus the EP) for a number of years. It’s a political reality that incumbents are less innovative: their approach won, they’re in power, so why change? In addition, the Conservatives in the UK have a new website which embraces blogging, integration with social networks, online donation, and supporter mobilisation features to the same degree as the Obama campaign did in the US, so it’s not as if parties of the right don’t have it in them. Despite the need to find some better supporters to populate the Show your support page than the current weirdoes on display, it’s really quite an impressive showing.

Obama online

Think I’m breaking blog etiquette by cutting and pasting, but I realise that my last entry was very long, and some readers might not have had the time or patience to get all the way to point number 6, so here it is again (plus a few links and other points at the bottom):

Much has been said of how the Obama campaign mastered the web. The fact that three million people donated online, helping to make his campaign the best funded of all time, meant that money was no object. Having an endless supply of cash was obviously pretty handy, but what’s perhaps even more salient is that the Obama campaign was funded by citizens. Parties, corporations and corporate interest groups are usually candidates’ main donors, and these will at some point expect payback in some shape or form. How will citizens expect payback from Obama? By fulfilling his campaign promises. This is of course no guarantee that he can or will, but it’s a good starting point.

What’s been most revolutionary has been the campaign’s ability to use the web to not just inform people, but to mobilise them. Massive followings on various public social networking platforms has kept people informed and excited, and enabled them to easily spread information and urge their friends and acquaintances to join the conversation or register to vote and so on – the viral effect at play.

Even more important was my.barackobama.com, which became an offline facilitator for people wanting to help in some way – make calls, arrange meets, knock on doors, put up placards and so on. It’s somewhat ironic, but the ability to mobilise people offline was arguably the most important element of Obama’s online campaign: sort of a return to a bygone age when citizens would congregate for hours in town-halls and other meeting places to debate, organise, and delegate in support of their preferred candidate. The web has shown itself to be the enabler and integrator that has resurrected this phenomenon. So much for people being politically apathetic – it was a question of time or the means (and let’s not forget: an inspirational candidate).

A few recommendations on the topic of Obama and the web:

• Seth Godin writes about online viral videos trumping TV ads and how Democrats used permission to grow their support base and interact with them more effectively than the Republicans.
• EurActiv have interviewed Brian Fetherstonhaugh, chairman and CEO of OgilvyOne Worldwide, about Obama’s use of “new media”.
• A good post by Colin at ePolitics who claims that Obama would not have won without the Internet and explains why.
• Last but not least, concerns that Obama and his team would put their web efforts on hold following their win have proved to be without merit. The website of the President-elect, Change.gov, was launched last week, with some decent elements, like a “submit your story” feature and a blog. There’s some way to go before it matches my.barackobama.com in terms of interactive features and so on, but I’m sure that’s coming.
• And a tangent: the UK Conservatives are the latest to have hijacked “change” on their new, admittedly impressive, website.

Some thoughts on President Obama

The unprecedented dominance of the airwaves and column inches (what’s the web equivalent?) by the new US President-Elect over the last few months has led some people to complain of Obama-fatigue. Nonetheless, here are some points which I think have stood out.

1. I wrote about the dumbing down of US politics recently, but it’s been great to see that Obama’s cerebral style has been welcomed rather than scorned, especially since September. Once the financial crisis took off and people grew increasingly concerned about jobs, mortgages and pensions, they were far more comfortable with Obama than McCain’s rather more gung-ho and instinctive approach. Plenty of Obama voters obviously preferred Bush in 2004, given the swing, but the Iraq war or the war on terror, the main issues in 2004, were perhaps harder to relate to than voters’ own financial well-being. And when the latter was at stake, clever trumped cowboy. That’s somewhat comforting. A successful Obama presidency would hopefully convince more people that cerebral is best across the board.

UPDATE: Good column on this same issue on the New York Times website.

2. Obama’s ability to learn on the job and skilfully respond to criticism has been impressive. His response to the two prevailing criticisms – that he lacked experience and that he couldn’t back fantastic oratory with real substance – was to: 1) study all major portfolios in such depth that he could rival old hands like McCain and Hillary Clinton on the finer details of policy; and 2) choose in Joe Biden a running mate that could make up for this perceived Achilles heal.

3. At a time when Americans are feeling vulnerable about their economic plight, are more eager to reach out to the world, and are waking up to the threat of climate change (there’s been a shift – thanks Al Gore – drill baby drill was perverse), Obama represents a case of right place and right time. Americans are feeling less confident than they have for decades, and the message of each man to himself espoused by the Republicans can’t work as well at a time when the American Dream seems a little more distant to most and government help suddenly doesn’t look so bad. People want to feel safe and cared for, and Obama is deemed the better man for that role, due in equal measure to his personal biography and platform. We should not forget that McCain’s story is pretty inspirational too, but it represents the brasher, more confident America which many citizens have rejected for now.

4. How must Al-Qaeda be feeling right now? Or Ahmedinijad? I suspect they’re really annoyed. Their number one recruitment officer is coming to the end of his term and Americans have chosen to replace him with someone called Hussein. It’ll be a lot harder to denounce the great Satan now.

5. What was the McCain campaign thinking? Easy to say in hindsight perhaps, but his selling points were experience and being a moderate Republican. He surrendered both by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. And when he ran into trouble, his campaign went dirty, which given that Obama was running on a platform of hope and positive change was always going to backfire. He’s tarnished his legacy. A shame really.

6. Much has been said of how the Obama campaign mastered the web. The fact that three million people donated online, helping to make his campaign the best funded of all time, meant that money was no object. Having an endless supply of cash was obviously pretty handy, but what’s perhaps even more salient is that the Obama campaign was funded by citizens. Parties, corporations and corporate interest groups are usually candidates’ main donors, and these will at some point expect payback in some shape or form. How will citizens expect payback from Obama? By fulfilling his campaign promises. This is of course no guarantee that he can or will, but it’s a good starting point.

What’s been most revolutionary has been the campaign’s ability to use the web to not just inform people, but to mobilise them. Building up massive followings on various public social networking platforms has kept people informed and excited, and enabled them to easily spread information and urge their friends and acquaintances to join the conversation or register to vote and so on – the viral effect at play. Even more important was my.barackobama.com, which became an offline facilitator for people wanting to help in some way – make calls, arrange meets, knock on doors, put up placards and so on. It’s somewhat ironic, but the ability to mobilise people offline was arguably the most important element of Obama’s online campaign: sort of a return to a bygone age when citizens would congregate to debate, organise, and delegate in support of their preferred candidate. The web has shown itself to be the enabler and integrator that has resurrected this phenomenon. So much for people being politically apathetic – it was a question of time or the means (and let’s not forget: an inspirational candidate).

6. A bit of a tangent, but Obama’s success made me think of Italy’s political plight. After eight years of George Bush, Americans conveyed their disapproval by ditching his party and embracing a candidate whose policies, biography and style could not be more different. Democracy at play. In Italy, five years of ecomomic decline, gaffes, and a whole lot of time spent keeping himself out of legal trouble did not prevent Silvio Berlusconi from being re-elected earlier this year for a third time.

Now that I’ve put my impartial hat back on, another thought is the use of history in creating a political narrative that people can relate to or feel pride in. What really struck me was how Obama’s message of hope and change in his speeches is often relayed in connection with elements of US heritage, from the founding fathers, to the pioneers who ventured west, to Martin Luther King and so on.

Why do Italian politicians never evoke memories of our past and eloquently mould these into soundbites that inspire and encourage? It’s not as if there’s no material. What about evoking the spirit of Renaissance Florence: the small city-state which was a bastion of progressivism while the rest of Europe was just about emerging from the Dark Ages, producing philosophical movements, artists and writers that still define Western civilisation as we know it? Or the heroic tale of a mad adventurer, Giuseppe Garibaldi, whose thousand men beat the odds to conquer the Kingdom of the two Sicilies and help unify Italy? Or of how the country, ravaged by Fascism and the war, impoverished and agrarian, picked itself up by its bootstraps and underwent a true economic miracle in little more than two decades?

Sure, Florence and Garibaldi were a long time ago, and the economic miracle was arguably the result of the Marshall Plan and some very dubious machinations by the Christian-Democrats, but so what? It’s not the details but the notion of legacy that matters, however vague: instilling a sense of belonging and pride; that we should aim high, be brave, work hard, and aspire to be brilliant and humble in equal measure, because we owe it to those who came before us. Who knows. Someone might do it once Berlusconi is out of the picture. Around about 2018 then!