Guest Blogger: "Democracy is..."

Jeremy Curtin served as coordinator of the Bureau of International Information Programs in the U.S. State Department from 2005 to 2009, where he was the government's senior public diplomacy officer. During more than thirty years in the Foreign Service, he specialized in international public affairs and strategic communications. The Bureau of International Information Programs is responsible for creating the “Democracy Is . . . ” initiative.  

“Democracy Is . . . ”

Branding a whole country is tough.  “Cool Britannia” didn’t last.  Smaller countries keep trying.  For the United States, a big, diverse superpower with a myriad of conflicting voices and images, presenting a single coherent image to the world is just impossible.  That doesn’t mean that the US Government shouldn’t try to influence the way others see us.  That is, after all, the core mission of public diplomacy.  It just means that our efforts have to be strategically purposeful, with clear goals, and an understanding of the intended audience and the best way to reach them.

The “best way to reach them” has changed radically with the transformation in information technology, the explosion of television, especially satellite, and more recently the Web and mobile technology.  The Web brought not only new means of communication but new concepts about how effective communication could be achieved.  Interactivity replaced broadcast.  Communication had to be two-way, a conversation, not a speech.  To be heard, you had to listen.

That is the concept behind “Democracy Is . . . ”, a US State Department initiative to generate a global discussion – through a web-based video contest – about what democracy means to people in different cultures around the world.  The initiative was launched in 2008 and continues.  In its first two years, it drew over 1,600 videos from more than 130 countries.  Some entries were funny, some very serious and moving.  Some took vigorous issue with the American view of democracy.  Video production values varied greatly.  Entries were posted on YouTube, and people all over the world cast votes, choosing six winners representing six different geographical regions.  The initiative expanded beyond video to include other social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and to explore other media including digital photography.  To date over 6 million people have engaged in global dialogue through the “Democracy Is” program.

“Democracy Is . . . ” holds a couple of lessons.  It depended on real openness to many views, including opposing views.  That is not always easy for a government agency to pull off, but State Department leadership was supportive.  Partnerships were crucial.  The State Department started the idea, but it would never have succeeded without the hard work and contributions of YouTube and Google, NBC Universal, the University of Southern California, the Motion Picture Association of America and others.  Partnerships were important not only for the resources they brought – which were significant – but also because they reinforced the sense of common effort rather than a USG information campaign.

The “Democracy Is . . . ” initiative did not seek to replace more traditional information and outreach programs.    Quite the contrary, US embassies worked with film schools, democracy NGOs and others around the world to generate discussions and participation.  They created programs with the participants and formed relationships which have continued since.  

Even in the age of social media, our embassies still issue press releases and engage with journalists.  The Department spokesman still offers a media briefing every work day, explaining US policy and actions, keeping the public informed.  Now, the Department also delivers these official messages via Facebook and Twitter, and Secretary Clinton holds international town hall meetings over Adobe Connect.  And embassies use these new tools to engage publics, especially young people, who would have been beyond their reach just ten years ago.

All this does not add up to “Brand America.”  The clutter of other voices and images is still out there and proliferating.  But official America is being heard.  We are in the conversation, which is the first indispensable step to influence.        

America's Historic Branding Efforts

Now that we've discussed the what and why of nation branding, let's move on to the how. For this discussion, we'd like to start by looking at America's historic branding efforts. The first post examines the American National Exhibition.

The American National Exhibition opened in Moscow in 1959 to a curious Soviet public. The event provided a window into American life to millions of people who filed through the doors. The visitors saw examples of contemporary American life, from cars to homes to art. Young American guides led the curious Soviet public through the American story as well as their own personal stories of life in the United States and, in many cases, how their immigrant families became American citizens. The American exhibit organizers created this cultural exchange in the hopes that greater cultural understanding would decrease tensions between the 2 nations.

The video clip below allows a peek into the event as well as the famous impromptu "Kitchen Debate" that took place between then Vice President Nixon and Premier Nikita Khrushchev during the event.



Interestingly, according to Sergei Khrushchev, son of Premier Nikita Khrushchev and currently a professor at Brown University, he and his friends found the the handouts at the event (pamphlets, books, samples of American drinks and food) to be the most memorable aspect of the expo. He remembers that the cars, model American home, and other displays were out-of-reach to the average Soviet citizen, and, thus they assumed, were also out of reach to the average American citizen.

What image do you think America was trying to portray? Given the state of world affairs at that time, do you think this was an effective strategy?

Why Should Nations Brand Themselves?

Policymakers are increasingly recognizing the benefits of using soft power instead of hard power. Joseph Nye coined the term soft power and defines it as “encouraging others to channel or limit their activities in ways [the encourager] prefers[,]” noting that the ability to do so “tends to be associated with intangible power resources such as culture, ideology, and institutions." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates remarked on the need for soft power in a 2007 speech at Kansas State University:

“My message today is not about the defense budget or military power. My message is that if we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades, this country must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and create the capability to integrate and apply all of the elements of national power to problems and challenges abroad. In short, based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former Director of CIA and now as Secretary of Defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use “soft” power and for better integrating it with “hard” power.

One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win…So, we must urgently devote time, energy, and thought to how we better organize ourselves to meet the international challenges of the present and the future[.]”

Nation branding is a soft power tool that decision makers can use to successfully take on the challenges that Secretary Gates talked about; it helps a nation capture and apply Nye’s “intangible power resources.” By projecting a certain image and giving people around the world the tools to interpret its culture in the way that it wants, nation branding allows a country to persuade rather than use force to achieve its goals.

We’ll leave you with this video of President Obama’s speech at Cairo University in June of 2009, where he talks about the need to listen and engage with others and does a bit of nation branding as well, saying, “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

What do you think of soft power? Is it a useful tool? How should it be used with or in place of hard power?

The reason the US’s image increased so much within one year is due to the improvement in the following dimensions: Exports, Governance, Culture, People, Tourism and Immigration/Investment.  Since the election of President Obama, the global image of the US has vastly improved throughout the world.  This has had a major impact on America’s overall brand:

“In reality, and generally speaking, it seems like the United States, more than improving its image on the world, has been restored to its rightful spot as the world’s first economy. As the richest and most powerful country in the world, being at the 7th place was a freak of nature – an evidence of how awfully former President Bush had managed America’s image. Now, the country has recovered its natural position as the most admired country in the world.” [1]

As an American (or members of the international community), do you agree with this assessment?

[1] http://nation-branding.info/2009/10/07/nation-brands-index-2009/