Ahmadinejad and State PR

The somewhat bizarre way that the British sailors were released by Iran yesterday demonstrates that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the real political power that lies behind the public face of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows a thing or two about perception management. As my friend Roman comments, not a bad 10 days work.

Iranians made several points yesterday; Ahmadinejad's speech was a largely an anti-western polemic, within that he neatly tied together hostility to the Iraq war, their position on nuclear weapons and the British sailor's alleged incursion into Iraqi waters. But then, in the spirit of the religious festivals Ahmadinejad gave the grand, generous gesture.

Then the stage managed greeting of the captives reinforced the perception of the nation as forgiving, in the right in some way, while also providing a possible bargaining tool for later negotiations. It brings to mind an apocryphal story that may well be true. George W. and Carl Rove were discussing the President's image. Rove tells Bush that many of the people in Europe think he is an idiot; Bush's response "so what, they don't vote for me". Rove then carefully explained the importance of having international support. Iraq may not have won too much public support yesterday but the intention was there; and perhaps Ahmadinejad prove he does PR better than George W.

Political Exchange - The price of a vote

Many academics have struggled with the notion of exchange in political marketing. What is it voters give in exchange for good governance. It could be the vote itself, or taxation and costs of living. But what if we delve deeper.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau developed the idea of a social contract. We the people give up the right to self-representation to allow another to represent us, we can then get on with our daily lives and leave the politics to those better equipped (sound familiar, maybe not but... bear with me.)

John Lilburne, leading Leveller, argued for votes for all on the premise that to demand that the citizenry obey a law any 'person' must have a say in its creation. The vote is symbolic of the contract between voter and representative and so each MP should be the voice of those they represent with the Prime Minister being perceived as the voice for the nation. This contract seems to have broken down, few recognise the symbolic value of the vote and marketing has reduced the value to almost nothing (especially to the circa 40% who do not vote).

Can marketing restore the link by using the representative capacity of market-led governance, is that realistic? Big questions, yet at the heart of democratic theory is a perspective consistent with a marketing orientation!

Political Marketing - a failed idea?

Political Marketing was heralded by at least one authority as a potential solution to disengagement, instead it seems that it is a source of deepening disengagement and dissatisfaction. This, I contend, is not because the idea is flawed; but that the way marketing is used by political parties is actually not marketing but a form of marketised communication strategy.

A study of the UK parties use of marketing at the 2005 General Election noted that rhetorically Labour was most market-oriented but that on the whole the focus when creating policies was internal, it was the process of communication design that was external. This misreads marketing.

If the parties were interested in reconnecting they would not be limiting choice to the electorate, nor would voters be seeking the least worst option or looking more to the quality of local candidate than who should be Prime Minister. Parties approach corporate strategy and communication like magpies; if it looks shiny they will steal it, but anything too complex is left to the high street brands. Hence consumers have relationships with their favourite stores, yet the parties' loyal voters are becoming a feature of history.

Contest, what contest?

The debate in the media rattles on: should Blair hand over power or should there be a contest? The left have candidates with little chance of even securing the required number of signatories, but serious challengers seem more worried about their future job prospects when they have lost than offer the party choice. Members of the public offering their comments to the BBC News online 'Who Should Lead Labour' page offer a range of views, some centring interestingly on democracy.

But the people will not get their say whatever, unless an election is held and this will not happen. I think that someone should adapt the comments of Stephen Coleman and allow the public to decide. Lets have a phone-in contest that is worthwhile, let us see the heavyweights convince us they are real people, worthy of leading the nation, let every person have a chance to vote once, let us all for a change say who should be prime minister instead of choosing the least wost of the leaders.

E-MPs

In response to the Power Report, Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw successfully passed a motion that will see MPs given an annual allowance of £10,000 to build and maintain a web presence in order to "contribute to better public understanding of what this Parliament is about and what it does". There is a logic here, e-marketing and e-communication literature suggests that the Internet has the capacity to allow relationships to be established between sender and receiver and for interaction to level out social inequalities. Studies of party e-newsletters confirm that this is possible for political communication, and the potential of blogs is lauded; yet currently this potential is untapped. The parliamentary debate centred on the question of the main function, how could it be about promoting understanding while rejecting campaigning: this left some fundamental questions seemingly unanswered.

1. Are MPs websites really the way to encourage understanding of parliament?
2. Will they have the interactive elements that makes the Internet a tool for relationship building?
3. Is there evidence based on visitor surveys to the COI site that there is a demand for interaction with political institutions?
4. What would be the 'pull' factor to encourage visitors onto these sites?
5. In an age of impression management and permanent campaigning, how do we define what is or is not campaigning?

The lack of answers means that this 10,000 x 659 MPs could be a gross waste of money. Particularly given that each MP, or at least those in the marginal seats, will create their own website anyway in order to campaign online. Given this, are Power's concerns really going to be solved by the emphasis on e-political communication, more importantly is trust and disengagement a problem with the media or the sender and their message?

Blogging for Reform

My colleague David Phillips maintains (as his comments on here show) that e-communication is the future, I remain sceptical; however there are glimmers of hope that his brave new world may yet be a reality.

An interesting article in the FT highlights the growing number of activists in the undemocratic regimes of the Middle East are using their blogs to highlight inequalities in society, call for reforms and, importantly, get more people interested in the issues. They see that too many people are focusing on the bread and butter issues and not looking to the real reasons of social problems: the oligarchic nature of the state.

While in its infancy the movement could just build up to the proportions the anti-capitalist movement had in the early to mid 1990s, one that could gather momentum and carve an alternative future for the region. They take great risks in the open dissent, but their presence remains and grows: are they the new face of Middle Eastern politics who are embracing new technologies, cultures and ideas (if you understand Arabic have a look at some ideas and follow a few links) its inspiring stuff!

Airbrushing History

The problem for any modern day politician is that they need to come to the job with no past, as any form of past could be used against them. Most of the time we should pity the politician, at other times burying parts of their history may well be strategic.

David Cameron is inventing himself as a new, 'green', family man, just an ordinary guy with the same cares and concerns as the rest of us. This brackets off his very privileged upbringing and his membership of one particular group for ultra-rich toffs. The Bullingdon Club is a socially exclusive student drinking society at Oxford University, infamous only for its members' wealth and destructive capacity. Membership is by invitation only, and prohibitively expensive for most. The Club was founded over 150 years ago, originally as a hunting and cricket club but now exists primarily as a dining club with a vestige of hunting in the support of the point to point. The club traditionally meets for an annual breakfast at the Bullingdon point to point, and a club dinner, as well as smaller initiation dinners, before which the rooms of new members are wrecked.

As the above picture shows members, the pictured includes Cameron, 2nd along the back row and Boris Johnson, front right seated, traditionally dressed for their annual dinner. The event they are going to would find them booking a private dining room under an assumed name, then physically destroying the place. Very large amounts of cash are then offered to the owners to pay them off for the destruction. The Bullingdon Club is satirised in Evelyn Waugh's novel Decline and Fall (1928), now why do you think that nice and ordinary Mr Cameron tried to restrict access to and publication of this photograph. What perception does this offer of him and his background, how authentic does he appear?

The personal touch

I revisited some of the research I did around the last General Election (see article or book), one clear finding related to recall of leaflets received and why. No direct marketing strategist will be surprised by this but voters in marginal constituencies remember leaflets that talk about local issues that are of direct relevance to the receiver and appear to have the personal touch (from candidate to voter). The remembered receiving the party focused stuff but did not remember the content at all unless they thought that was a key priority for the next government. In Dorset MRSA and immigration seemed to have little or no resonance whatsoever.

So what? Well perhaps this is the problem with most political communication, it is produced for the mass media, lacks the human touch and is perceived to have no relevance to the receiver, often because they assume if it is from a politician it will be irrelevant. The problem here is that no parties or governments can afford the personalised literature that most marketers use, so the great solution appears as far away as ever!

Tip One: keep it real

Barack Obama is tipped to be the next US President. But why? Here's a theory. He positions himself carefully as the outsider, with his ethnicity and background as evidence for this. Thus he is the non-Washington candidate, the real person, the real American perhaps. George W capitalized on his all American man image; Obama is slightly different, and an idealist, but his authenticity is his secret. He appears to offer a quality that Americans currently need, a fresh perspective on politics, one not tainted by the military-industrial complex. Whether he can sustain his image of authenticity should he win the nomination is a big question but currently his ability to 'keep it real' is placing him as the hot favourite as his support climbs.

Perspectives of Racism

Racism should not be tolerated in any form, hence the removal of a Conservative Councillor Ellenor Bland from selection lists and the dismissal of Home Affairs spokesman Patrick Mercer were absolutely correct. In particular Mercer should have been thinking of ways to ensure discrimination is removed as a normal part of life in the armed services and not condoning or excusing it - surely that is what we expect from MPs.

The problem is that the behaviour of these MPs is representative of views and actions that are widespread. Racist emails are circulated, many blacks have become accustomed to being referred to as 'the nigger' etc and worse in the factory; yet they do and say nothing as they do not wish to blow things out of proportion, be a trouble-maker.

But there are those that do use racism as a tool by which to undermine an opponent, and I wonder if this is something Lord Levy is employing. In the footsteps of Shilpa Shetty, he may be in the process of moving from crooked villain subverting British democracy to victim of anti-semitism. While some accusations may be grounded within hostility to British Jewry, once racism is introduced debate is stifled as to criticise the victim is to agree with the racists.

We need to separate out the small-minded xenophobic tendencies within our island mentality while ensuring that racism cannot be used as a cover by those who want to escape criticism, Mercer et al do society a gross disservice as they place evidence of racism in high places on the agenda, allowing others to see the potential in their differences rather than the problems.