The presidential campaign will be the most expensive in history, and will touch on countries throughout the Middle East and Africa.
The eyes of much of the Middle East and African regions will be on the U.S. presidential and congressional elections in 2012 as Democrats and Republicans fight it out for control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The ballots could have key implications not just for U.S. domestic issues, but also U.S. policy across the Middle East and Africa, including in Iran.
This year’s elections will be the most expensive in history, with some anticipating that Barack Obama might even become the first candidate ever to raise more than a billion dollars for a presidential campaign. Overall, the Center for Responsive Politics estimates the total cost of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections could climb as high as a mammoth $6 billion.
Given the vast amount of money spent on campaigns in election years, a significant mini-industry of U.S. political consultants has long existed. However, what is less widely appreciated is how common it has become for many of these same people to work behind the scenes in other countries. American political consultants have already worked in more than half of the countries in the world to support campaigns and elections.
This year, that number will probably grow as more uncharted international territory is reached out to.
In the first half of 2012, for instance, key potential targets for new 'work' in the Middle East and Africa will include the Egyptian parliamentary and presidential elections in January and March; Senegal’s presidential election in February; Kuwait’s parliamentary elections in February; Yemen’s presidential election in February; the Iranian parliamentary elections in March; the Mali presidential election in May; Palestinian parliamentary and presidential elections in May; and the parliamentary elections in Burkino Faso in May.
While the success of these internationally mobile political consultants is mixed in terms of electoral outcomes, they have nonetheless had a lasting effect, prompting what some have called the 'globalization' of the political communications industry. Or, in the eyes of critics, the international triumph of spin over substance, which has tended to promote more homogeneous campaigns with a repetitive, common political language.
As James Harding, the editor of The Times of London, documents in Alpha Dogs, the origins of this phenomenon lies in the 1970s, when U.S. political consultants (at the vanguard of which was the Sawyer Miller agency) began exporting U.S. political technologies and tactics into Latin America and, then, ultimately across the globe.
A KEY underlying premise of the industry is that such technologies and tactics can achieve political success just about anywhere.
Thus, many foreign countries are sometimes deemed as mere international counterparts of U.S. election battleground states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
What started as international elections and campaigning work soon branched out into providing more foreign governments, leaders and bodies such as tourism and investment authorities with international communications counsel and ultimately what is now known as 'country branding.'
Country branding is founded (like disciplines such as public diplomacy) on the realization that, in an overcrowded global information marketplace, countries and political leaders are, in effect, competing for the attention of investors, tourists, supranational organizations, non-government organizations, regulators, media and consumers.
In this ultra-competitive environment, reputation can be a prized asset (or potentially big liability) with a direct effect on future political, economic, social and cultural fortunes:
In some cases, a single highly damaging episode can fundamentally damage a country’s standing – as China found following Tiananmen Square. In such cases an approach involving a long recovery time to rebuild what is lost is often required.
A country may simply wish to promote an opportunity based on a specific, single goal, such as wanting to attract more foreign direct investment or increasing tourism – as the current 'Incredible India' campaign illustrates.
Other states, for example Georgia, Rwanda and the Maldives, may want to establish a presence in the public mind because of fears about a specific issue (such as Russian preponderance, building sympathy among donors and investors and tourism in the short term, and/or climate change in the long-term respectively).
In general, the most effective country strategies align all key stakeholders (across the public, private and third sectors) around a single powerful vision for global positioning.
