Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Change was in the air, and it felt electric.

Former diplomat Mietek Boduszynski was posted to Libya in 2010, a year before an armed revolt would overthrow the regime of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. In the early days of the Arab Spring, there was the remarkable sight of people in Cairo's Tahrir Square having open political discussions, and Libyans excitedly discussed their future under a new leader.

"I saw young Arabs who wanted the same thing people want everywhere: to be able to voice their opinion on Twitter and Facebook, choose their leaders, and have them held accountable if corrupt," Boduszynski told The Week. "These are universal aspirations."

The Arab Spring uprisings began a century after Woodrow Wilson began a push to promote democracy abroad, believing this would foster world peace and stability. Over the last 100 years, the United States has supported democratization efforts in all corners of the globe, but the demand for free elections and judicial reform has cooled in recent years.

In his new book, U.S. Democracy Promotion in the Arab World: Beyond Interests vs. Ideals, Boduszynski, a politics and international relations professor at Pomona College, writes about the United States' stuttering advocacy for democracy. Like many past and present members of the foreign service, he is troubled by how the current administration is wielding power.

Boduszynski didn't set out to become a diplomat. He came to the U.S. as a political refugee from Poland when he was five years old, and his family ultimately benefited from President Ronald Reagan's general amnesty. While finishing his doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley, Boduszynski was torn between staying in academia or exploring the world with the State Department. He chose adventure, and went off to Albania for his first posting. His career would later take him to hotspots like Kosovo and Iraq.

The United States has always been selective about when and where it will promote democracy, Boduszynski says, with the consequences still felt today. In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. chose not to exact revenge on its enemies, but rather promote democratic institutions. Once the Cold War heated up, the U.S. became interested in one thing: countering Soviet influence. This maniacal focus resulted in the overthrow of democratically-elected regimes, such as the ones in Iran and Guatemala.

The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave the United States a chance to stop focusing on combating communism and start promoting democracy in Eastern Europe.

Take Ukraine. "Successive presidential administrations, Republican and Democrat, have made strengthening Ukrainian democratic institutions a goal of U.S. policy," Boduszynski said. "Pro-Western Ukrainian governments have been receptive to U.S. efforts, because they would like their country to be a member of the Western democratic community of nations."

That's one reason why he found President Trump's decision to freeze $400 million in security aid to Ukraine, which was the major impetus for the House of Representatives' impeachment vote, so alarming. Boduszynski said the kind of assistance Trump "chose to politicize was critical for [democracy promotion], and also critical to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression which is also in the U.S. interest. In other words, President Trump has distorted and undermined U.S. democracy promotion policy toward a country with fragile institutions that badly needs and welcomes American assistance, and in the process hurt U.S. national interests."

For every country like Ukraine that's willing to listen, there's another with an authoritarian leader posing a challenge. Presidents of both parties have cozied up to authoritarian regimes when it suits the United States' interests, particularly in the Middle East.

Indeed, for many decades, even as democracy promotion efforts expanded across the globe, the Arab world was the exception. Boduszynski said that in Washington, the general attitude was "these are societies that are not made for democracy. Having a strong person rule is the only way to prevent chaos and terrorism."

Then came the Arab Spring.

Boduszynski said the protests caught many off guard "because they were talking to regimes, not the people, and had been missing things." He worked for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed in a 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Boduszynski's new book is dedicated to Stevens, whom he called "a wonderful representative of the United States. He was a believer that Arabs and people around the world deserve better than having to choose between chaos and authoritarians."

Boduszynski was supposed to be in Benghazi when the attack occurred; due to last minute logistical issues, he remained in Tripoli. In the wake of the disaster, 10 investigations were launched, including six by GOP-controlled congressional committees, with Republicans accusing members of the Obama administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of participating in a coverup.

"It was really sad for me to see how the attack in Benghazi became a political witch hunt in our politics," Boduszynski said. "[Stevens] never would have wanted our domestic policy held hostage because he was doing his job, and there were certain risks that went into it, like a police officer or firefighter. The biggest craziness in Washington was when Republicans decided to make this a way to go after Hillary Clinton, instead of what it was: tragic terrorism."

In the Trump administration, democracy promotion is seemingly on the back burner. On the left and the right, there are growing calls for isolationism, with the argument being that the United States cannot be the world's policeman. "We have a lot of domestic problems and people are tired of these endless commitments," Boduszynski said.

He's found that many people overseas think U.S. foreign policy involves "a small group of people getting together in a situation room, making decisions about the world." In fact, "it's very messy ... and reflects the democratic system." This misconception presents an opportunity.

"One way we should conduct our foreign policy is to focus on things that attract people to the U.S., but also recognize the difficult road of our own democracy," Boduszynski said. "The civil rights movement was just a few decades ago. It's important to tell our story overseas, about how we still have huge problems, but we became more inclusive and a better democracy over time."

Read more here:
What a former diplomat thinks about Trump, Ukraine, and America's role in promoting democracy abroad - The Week

Boris Johnson during a house session.

Denis MacShane, The Independent

For the last 300 years the world was changed by mass movements of people demonstrating and then as the franchise was extended, by voting. Not anymore. The age-old means of winning change no longer seem to be working.

2019 was the year of marches, rallies and demonstrations, with more people voting in elections than ever before. But nothing has changed. From Extinction Rebellion demonstrators disrupting London and other cities to almost the entire population of Hong Kong occupying its streets to demand democratic rights from their communist overlords in Beijing, from the mass protests in Lebanon to huge rallies in India against the nationalist anti-Muslim identity politics and Hindu supremacism of Narendra Modi, it seemed as if the world and especially the young world was on the move and demanding more democracy. And yet the year ended with the upholders of the status quo firmly in control.

Thousands of Russians have been arrested in anti-Putin demonstrations; Paris was disrupted by gilets jaunes protests and now by massive transport strikes; London saw two of its biggest ever demonstrations when up to one million people marched to demand a Final Say on Brexit. But the men running Russia, France and Britain are unmoved and still firmly in charge. Major general elections were also held in India, South Africa, Spain, Poland, Australia, Israel, Denmark and Switzerland, but voters, when they could be bothered to turn out, simply voted for the status quo.

The European Parliament had an election, but the hopes of European political groups that having a so-called Spitzenkandidat, a lead figure from the left, the centre-right or Liberals, would animate voters flopped too. Once the elections were over, the Eurocrats and national governments took over and installed at the top of the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the EU foreign service and the European Parliament politicians nominated by national government who were never on any ballot paper in the European Parliament elections. The voters of Europe were told once again that it was the nation states of Europe who decided who would run the show.

The old 1968 graffiti If voting ever changed anything theyd abolish it has never been more true.

Commentators and academic analysts pour over these figures and gravely inform us that the left is finished, that some imagined liberal era is over to be replaced by populist identity politics. Some argue that voting systems are to blame. But, in 2019, the worlds many voting systems were made use of and they all produced the same result.

Voters are nervous of change and unconvinced by any of the political offers that imply a new start or a challenge to conventional thinking. It is the era when change began with some powerful, convincing new ideas argued by intellectuals, converted into campaigns with demonstrations, petitions and other mobilisations, then finally were either adopted by parties or gave rise to new political movements and even new parties, that is truly over.

International bodies such as the International Labour Organisation and Nato celebrated 100 and 75 years of existence in 2019, but workers have never been weaker with deunionisation (outside the protected public sector) now the norm in Britain, the US, most of Europe and elsewhere in the world. Vladamir Putin runs rings around Nato, while Donald Trump can barely conceal his contempt for it.

2019 finishes a decade in which less progress was marked than at any time since 1945. Democratic advance has stalled. Filling to streets and voting in the ballot box appears to change nothing. So what happens next? That is the question to which the 2020s must provide an answer.

Read the original post:
A year of democracy that changed nothing - Gulf Today

After the Citizenship Amendment Act became a reality in the middle of December, protests broke out across India. By now, about 25 people have been killed around the country, most of them falling to police bullets. Even in the Jayaprakash Narayan movement against Indira Gandhi in the mid-1970s and the subsequent Emergency, such massive nationwide protests and police killings did not take place.

Despite the governments claims that the Opposition is behind the protests, they mostly are spontaneous. Again, contrary to the governments suggestion, it is not just the Muslim community that is demonstrating. People of all religions especially students have participated in a big way.

The panicked Bharatiya Janata Party-controlled Central government has let the police loose on protesting students and general public in states ruled by the party. But the police baton-charges, teargas shelling and firing have failed to cow down Indians: to the contrary, they have resurrected the spirit of Indian democracy.

In Hindutva political theory, there is no discourse about citizenship of human beings in relation to state and society. The concept of citizenship first formulated by Aristotle in Greece. He defines citizen as a person who has the right to participate in deliberative or judicial offices of the state. According to him aliens and slaves have no citizenship rights.

This idea was developed by later European thinkers, who broadly defined a citizen as a person who could vote and receive the benefits for continuing life and making the life better in the process of living in a given state. Immigrants were given the right to ask for citizenship based on their contribution to that society and state through their labour power, not based on religion or creed, caste or race.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharitya Janata Party want to rely on ancient Indian literary sources for their understanding of the concept of the citizen. But there is no proper definition of citizenship in moar ancient Indian texts: they all support caste-based karma theory but not a rational theory of citizenship. Even Kautilyas Arthashastra, a treatise about statecraft, fails to define who a citizen is.

The only book that talks about the citizen, known as the nagarika, is Vastyayanas Kama Sutra. But it offers a rather perverted definition of the role: the nagarika is a householder and enlightened person. What should he do? According to Kama Sutra, having put his clothes and ornaments, [he] should during the afternoon converse with his friends. In the evening there should be a singing and after that the house holder, along with his friends should await in his room, previously decorated and perfumed, the arrival of a woman who may be attached to him.

The woman with whom the nagarika is supposed to engage with is a ganika a courtesan. But there is no discussion about the state and its membership in this text at all.

No democratic state should give citizenship to either migrants or to refugees based on their religious background. But the Citizenship Amendment Act provides a fast track to citizenship for undocumented migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh if they are not Muslim.

This is a theocratic law, to say the least. According to Hindutva theoreticians like Subramanyan Swamy, no Muslim is persecuted in these Islamic nations so they have no need to seek residence in India. If so, why mention religion in the Act at all and arouse the ire of Indias Muslims? The mention of religion in the Act provides serious grounds for Indian citizens belonging to that religion to be anxious that all of them could be rendered stateless. That suspicion has deepened now.

Even considering that Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh discriminate against their minorities, why should a mature democracy like India, which has well-acclaimed Constitution, do the same? Our founding fathers would not have wanted this.

Assuming that the US decides tomorrow that illegal migrants of all religions will get citizenship, except if they are Hindu. Hindus who are already US citizens will realise that they are being told they are unwanted.Once such a law is enacted, how do they think that non-Hindus will treat them as good citizens? This is the main problem that the Indian Muslims will face with the countrys new citizenship law.

Even though India has functioned as a constitutional democracy for seven decades, our idea of human rights and citizenship remains underdeveloped. We need to evolve in our understanding of several matters, particularly how to negotiate between civil rights and religious faith. If the line between religion and civil rights is erased, our democratic system will collapse.

Though Indias ancient and medieval texts do not provide us a sophisticated theory of citizenship or on how democratic institutions should function, modern Indian thinkers like BR Ambedkar have provided some guidance on these matters. Still, to sustain democracy, we needs to read and re-read the western theories of human and civil rights.

The foundational principle of democracy is that though majority elects government, the minority that voted to the opposition should always feel secure in every institution of the nation. A government should never equate itself with nation, as the BJP-RSS are doing. That is self destructive.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author and the Former director, of the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the Maulana Azad National Urdu University in Hyderabad.

Read more:
CAA-NRC debate: If religion is allowed to colour civil rights, Indias democracy will be imperiled - Scroll.in

Marketers will spend $112bn (85bn) worldwide on social media advertising in 2020, despite many of them "doing it wrong", new research reveals.

Analysts at Forrester found that just under a third (31%) of chief marketing officers cannot show the impact of social media on their businesses.

This is because, the report argues, "social media stumps marketers. First, they had unrealistic expectations of social media, hoping it would be the key to unlocking massive profits in the digital age. When that didnt pan out, they shifted 180 degrees to believing that social medias only use was for advertising. Although its true that Facebooks primary business value is as an advertising platform, its a mistake to infer that advertising is social medias sole opportunity."

Instead of having a "social marketing strategy", the study says, marketers should instead use social tactics and technology strategically alongside other channels to achieve broader marketing goals.

The report also details the reasons for most marketers social errors and how companies should use social skills to augment other marketing functions.

For example, user-generated content can be effective outside social features where it is gathered and displayed. Forrester said the "gold standard" of this approach is Apples integrated campaign "Shot on iPhone", which repurposes images and videos that users produce on the smartphone into TV spots, billboards and print ads.

Social media has also improved as a tool for brand sentiment, the report explains, because the platforms are taking their role in ensuring brand health more seriously. Twitter, for example, allows brands to buy customer feedback in Net Promoter Score and Customer Satisfaction Score formats.

Social media adspend is forecast by Publicis Groupe's Zenith to be the second-fastest-growing channel between 2019 and 2022 at 13.8%, behind online video (16.6%).

Visit link:
Social media adspend to hit $112bn even though it 'stumps' marketers - CampaignLive

The new year is a time when we naturally assess what went well in the twelve months prior, and what wed like to do differently moving forward. Thats true for businesses, too, especially since many have annual goals for growth and profit.

Theres no better time to turn over a new leaf, after all, than a new year. As we move into 2020, there are four resolutions that all business owners should seriously consider making if they havent already.

If youre feeling hesitant, I have good news: These resolutions are relatively easy to implement, and they can all yield major payoffs.

1. Look at your PR.

Do you know how customers perceive your brand currently? This can be difficult to track because customers wont always share their thoughts with you.

Investing in PR tools and services can be a great choice for businesses, especially if youre trying to scale and struggling to do so. Plenty of PR agencies, for example, offer suggestions on how to promote brand awareness and improve the customer perception of your brand.

As you look at your current PR efforts, consider writing and distributing press releases, appearing as an expert source in written and televised appearances, and monitoring your brands reputation online.

2. Invest in marketing.

You cant grow your business without marketing. No one will hire you or buy from you if they dont know that you exist.

Quality marketing campaigns are necessary to scale your business. This can include any combination of platforms and channels, including search engine optimization, content marketing, PPC campaigns, social marketing, email marketing and more.

If youre on a tight budget, start with free and low-cost channels. Brush up on your SEO basics. Set up email marketing to keep current leads and customers engaged. Use social to create more touch points and nurture relationships. These marketing channels do require a consistent time investment, but they wont break the bank.

3. Carefully monitor cash flow.

Cash flow is a huge issue for businesses. In fact, its one reason many small businesses have to close up shop. Making a diligent effort to monitor and manage your cash flow should be a resolution for 2020.

While small business profitability can be wildly unpredictable, there are steps you can take to better monitor your cash flow. Use invoice and expense tracking software such as FreshBooks or QuickBooks to monitor all upcoming expenses and current profitability.

Use reports to look at your businesss past performance, identifying what will likely be high-earning months and low-earning months so that you can prepare and ensure that all of your costs are covered.

Knowing what expenses are coming can be an enormous asset in financial planning, making your life much easier in the process.

4. Improve customer service.

Customers will jump ship if they feel the customer service is lacking, and 96% of all customers believe that customer service is an important factor when it comes to choosing a brand.You cant afford not to have great customer service.

Customer service is one of the biggest drivers in business right now, largely because its a consumers market. There are so many competitors out there, and customer service is what sets businesses apart. You can actually earn new customers simply because theyve heard that customer service is a priority.

Invest in strong customer service. Make sure that any client-facing team members have adequate training in service, even if theyre account managers or other types of specialized workers. You should also consider looking into a quality answering service if youre experiencing a high volume of calls and youre struggling to keep up, ensuring all customers are receiving the care they need.

The new year is here, and its time to get your business resolutions in order. Take a look at where you struggled most last year, identifying pain points that you can mitigate moving into 2020. Nothing will change unless you put measures in place to shake things up, and these four resolutions are a strong place to start.

Theres never any harm in better PR, strong marketing, increased cash flow and a boost in customer service, so even if youre happy with where you stood in 2019, look for room for improvement for 2020.

See original here:
Four Ways To Help Your Business Stand Out From The Competition This Year - Forbes