Like a marathon runner turning on to the Mall in London, the US election campaign has nearly reached the finish. As in 2004 , this election cycle has demonstrated the growing importance of online engagement and highlights the potential for PD organisations seeking to target the US, as more key influencers emerge and engage on the internet.Â
This engagement will require a shift in mindset to greater openness and dialogue in both planning and practise. Unfortunately, as Tommi Laitio highlighted this week Coping with the World, those that do conduct themselves with greater openness can be attacked for exactly that;
Senior foreign policy experts including some former foreign ministers are currently criticising the current minister Alexander Stubb for too much openness. Stubb allowed the daily Helsingin Sanomat to publish assesments of Finnish ambassadors on the status of world politics.
The Canadian E-discussions while not really discursive are at least an attempt at openness. They have a way to go to be considered genuine dialogue but it’s a start.
Why target the US online?
The ability of PD organisations to engage online – particularly those targetting America – matters because, recent Pew survey results and the accreditation of bloggers at the conventions, for example, have demonstrated the level of political engagement online.
The headline from; The internet and the 2008 election by Aaron Smith and Lee Rainie was that by June;
46% of Americans have used the internet to get political news and share their thoughts about the campaign. Online video and social networking sites have taken off…
Other key stats include;
- 39% of online Americans have used the internet to gain access to primary political documents and observe campaign events.
- 35% of Americans have watched online videos related to the campaign,
- 11% of Americans have contributed to the political conversation by forwarding or posting someone else’s commentary about the race.
- 10% have used social networking sites to engage in political activity (which is 40% of those who have created profiles on such sites. Two-thirds of internet users under the age of 30 have a social networking profile, and half of these use social networking sites to get or share information about politics or the campaigns).
- 8% of internet users (representing 6% of all adults) have donated money to a candidate online.
The report demonstrates, unsurprisingly, that political engagement online has increased both since 2004 election campaign and the earlier Pew survey in 2006.
This presents two interesting options –
1) what can PD organisations learn from the way these campaigns are run, what is the relationship between the integrated official elements of the campaign and the dispersed elements which enrich the campaign at a local level but are beyond centralised authority?
2) Should PD organisations (particularly those with limited financial resources) be shifting emphasis from physical world to virtual when targeting the US?
The first I fear is too large a point for this post, and I’m not really the person to provide the answer – so I’ll leave it as a question should anyone wish to venture perspectives from the campaign.
The second question however, highlights an important point I can address – the US is wide open for online engagement, both for the purpose of domestic politics and PD initiatives launched from outside the US. As the Pew report demonstrates the numbers of people who use online platforms for political activity is growing. The question is how long will it take for PD initiatives to aggressively follow suit. There are of course, those early adopters that are already busy, but for the rest, the potential for mass engagement in an online environment is still one of untapped potential. The engagement of blogger networks for example, might provide means to deliver a dispersed strategy if a PD organisation had something with which to engage them. Ultimately will they be able to find a means of engagement?
Understanding coordination games and having individuals within a PD organisation empowered to engage in the online environments would be a start. These will require greater openness, a willingness to engage, and mindset that seeks out ideas originating outside the organisation.
With Americans increasingly engaging online, those seeking to engage may value the potential which could be gained from creating PD programmes that match this trend. This will likely require a breaking down of the formal hierarchies through which MFA, and related organisations tend to operate. On a practical level individuals will also need to be able to engage at work, so social spaces, online video, skype etc. will all need to work on the computers of PD organisations. The active discouragement of this engagement at work, through blocking sites and limiting access to technology shuts off a potential (and rapidly growing) area of engagement with the American population which for most PD organisations is high on the priority list.
With the report this week that operations in Afghanistan are playing catch-up with their opponents, in the use of video on mobile phones, this gap in adoption cannot be allowed to grow in any environment. For those, for example Europeans, seeking to influence the US public The internet and the 2008 election presents clear evidence that there is potential to conduct PD with large scale audiences online. The challenge, for many, will be whether the PD organisations can adapt fast enough to empower their representatives to engage effectively in these environments?