(If you want to learn more about Political Communication, read Rudolf Beger’s recently published book “PRESENT-DAY CORPORATE COMMUNICATION”, 2018, www.springer.com)
You can buy your copy of “Present-Day Corporate Communication” on
“DO NOT ENGAGE – IGNORE – LEAVE IN DARKNESS – DETRACT“
*Professor Zhang Wei Wei said, that for a longtime already, Western analysts’ predictions about China are wrong. He concludes that this may be a result from China’s official political discourse, which is not easily understandable to non-Chinese because it requires knowledge ofChina’s political context. According toProfessor Zhang, there is a clear and growing demand for a new narrative as both, Chinese and foreigners, want to make better sense of what China will do in the future.
According to Professor Zhang, China’s communication strategy must be designed to overcome prevailing “bad-mouthing” by foreigners. “Bad-mouthing” is Professor Zhang’s reference to alleged biased reporting aboutChina in most Western media. In Professor Zhang’s opinion, the Western media coverage of today’s China seems to be“ten times more ideological than the Chinese media’s coverage of the West”. In his view, the Western media’s cultural and ideological bias is so strong that it reminds him of the Chinese media’s coverage of the West during Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
In Professor Zhang’s view, China’s new communication policy should engage its Western analysts and critics in debates on foreign policy issues, for instance on the South China Sea issue, Taiwan, and N.Korea, in a similar way as Russia’s Putin is doing it on various other issues, for example as regards cyber attacks or the Ukraine.
Professor Zhang’s proposal for a communication counter-strategy to biased Western media reporting is quite surprising:
Professor Zhang assumes that, also in the future, the Western media will fail to take a fresh look at China’s fast-changing society and, as a result, will probably not be able to overcome their ideological straightjackets. As a consequence, Professor Zhang is suggesting a communication strategy, which will
(1) NOT engage in any special activity,
(2) IGNORE the Western media’s bias and misjudgements, and
(3) LEAVE the Western analysts and observers IN DARKNESS.
In this context, Professor Zhang refers to a British Lord’s audience with Chinese Emperor Qianlong in1793, when the Chinese emperor said: “We’re the best, and you’re nothing.” According to Professor Zhang, history has shown that China’s sharp decline after this demonstration of cultural arrogance may be the fate that may befall the West in the future
In my view, Professor Zhang’s proposed communication strategy based on “NO COMMUNICATION” constitutes a real risk for our liberal Western system, for the following reasons:
- Growing US-led populism in politics,
- the disregard or devaluation of democratic structures and players such as the demonisation of the free press (“enemy of the people”),
- the erosion, perversion, manipulation or even mockery of democratic principles and structures,
- partisan statesmanship,
- the promotion of divisions over unity,
- the replacement of democratic dialogue and civilised confrontation by unbridled partiality and (personal) degradation,
will provoke the risk of people finding the undemocratic but stable and economically successful Chinese system of a one-party rule more attractive than our “corrupted” liberal Western democratic system. “Corrupted” because, especially in theUSA, there is too much money involved in the Western democracies’ democratic process.
Particularly in the USA, the three powers involved in the democratic processes are, in an unhealthy way, out of balance. The power of
- CAPITAL (business power) has so much influence in the USA over
- SOCIAL power (the media and civil society) and
- POLITICAL power,
that the USA model of democracy is currently at the brink of getting discredited and can not and will no longer be considered as a model.
The special influence in the USA of capital over social and political power is particularly damaging because democracy presupposes a basic equality of influence. The increasing financial and economic inequality in the USA has, in parallel, increased the differences in influence over US political candidatures and institutions. Those billionaires and foundations who have large financial resources can better influence personal and institutional change than those who do not.
In addition, the diminishing (moral) quality of political leaders in combination with new means of effective mass communication (social media) have led to new phenomena affecting the credibility of the democratic system. Political leaders who perceive themselves as a tribune of the people and promote authoritarian beliefs but no longer act as mediators or refiners of the “empirically found popular will” are bound to create conflict and divisions.
The role played by social media in the decline of democracy is compounded by the fact that political players can use the massive amounts of data about users to craft specifically targeted messages that match specific fears or opinions.
Particular reference is made to “fake news”, “alternative truths” and blunt lies, which,strategically and tactically used, have a clear impact on people’s opinion. As it becomes clearer that the UK referendum on Brexit was based on many lies and fake promises, it also becomes more evident that a lot of small lies in politics become as dangerous as one big lie, especially when weaponised.
As a result, at present, there is a widespread public perception that democracies around the world are backsliding.This perception is based on some socio-political and economic mechanisms that are driving this decline:
- For various reasons, citizens of democracies are becoming less content with their institutions. They are increasingly willing to ditch institutions and norms that have been central to democracy;
- The decline of democratic institutions is intimately connected to feedback loops. Democracy regularly suffers when the gap between a society’s wealthiest and poorest increases;
- A population with an extreme diversity of opinions and partisan competition can also destabilise a functioning democracy by intolerance, polarisation and radicalisation;
- In addition, the erosion of widely held social norms can significantly contribute to the breakdown of a democracy. This process is fuelled partly by social media.Private views can easily be displayed to a large audience, whose expressed or tacit endorsement can legitimise even extreme opinions. This helps to create a false consensus effect even for any fringe opinion. Opinion exchange and competition which is a basic and stabilising feature of the democratic system will break down when the possibility for debate and political engagement is destroyed because messages are disseminated without the opponent being able to rebut any of those arguments used.
In view of the increasing self-dismantling of Western moral and political elites, the Chinese option of “a communication policy without communication” would, if implemented, show its long-term effects. The self-destructive process in the West with its negative consequences of a looming longing for “law and order” in an increasingly polarising political environment and an increasing number of people with no experience in practiced democratic free dialogue and debate but the disparagement of the dissident, will make a stable and successful political system such as the Chinese system seemingly desirable. Because polarised constituents may believe it is better to let democracy wither than have their opponent in power the will be a general trend towards and growing attractiveness of alternative regime types, even autocratic leaders. The stepwise development into more autocratic orders (such as in some of the former Soviet Union’s territories) is a conceivable alternative. This development is likely although no efforts are needed by political challengers like the Chinese to achieve this result. The Chinese system has the probability of replacing the traditional role model of Western style democracy and theChinese leaders would be right when deciding to just let it develop by itself and concentrate on their countries individual performance.
Against this background, the Europeans and the rest of the world will be well advised not to consider the USA anymore asa political model and not to follow US inspired populism. Like in many other fields, Europe must wake up, break away from the US politically and militarily and focus on its own strengths.
European have to recognise that,different to China and Europe’s different nations, the USA is a very young state with few traditions, a traditionally inward looking population and very limited foreign policy experience. Most of the USA’s ventures into the rest of the world were based on violence and not on diplomatic talent. In contrast, China and Europe can look back on an eventful history and highly developed culture that allows them to think and act independently of the USA.
At present, the military power of theUSA may seem overwhelming, but, when analysed carefully, it appears like a dinosaur threatened with extinction. The question must be asked, what use the most powerful atomic bomb arsenals, the most invisible planes, the largest aircraft carriers and the “mother of all bombs” have if the effectiveness of these weapons can be overridden by superior cyber intelligence without endangering even one soldier’s life. The current “Russia” probe in the USA is just a model run for what is going to come in the near future.
The Roman tactics of legionnaires running into their enemies in solid lines was apparently important until the 1st WorldWar and killed millions of misled young men.
After that, more modern tactics, such as fast advances of motorised units (Hitler) and guerrilla warfare (Vietnam, Cuba)were more successful and nations with traded strategies.
Many strategists still believe in hardware and haven’t realised that this may impress reporters, onlookers of military parades and a general public, but not those who have developed the smart know-how to effectively disrupt all command structures and make these proudly presented weapons totally dysfunctional. Tanks and similar iron-age weaponry may be good for getting directed against the political leaders’ own people or unwanted immigrants if they don’t want to follow orders anymore but the leaders’ macho attitude doesn’t work anymore effectively.
Today, it is software that replaces heavily armed legionnaires and increasingly sophisticated weaponry.
The reader may ask what this consideration of military aspects has to do with communication. Well, to be short, a lot!
In today’s communication overload, each communicator is fighting to being heard. The response to this challenge of a lot of communication practitioners is to become more noisy, more exciting, more surprising and more of whatever in their communications to attract the attention of their target audiences. This is becoming an increasingly difficult, if not impossible task. And frequently, the substantial resources invested stand in stark contrast to the success and / or sustainability of the communication measures.
This makes the possible tactic of “no-communication” proposed by Professor Zhang interesting as an inspiration.If there are new, so far little or not at all used, promising ways of warfare,then new, so far unused or little used ways of communication should also be considered in the field of communication.
Communication is a peaceful way of conveying an opinion, a message or a piece of news to an audience (sometimes against many odds) that often reacts instinctively and defensively. The word”to impose” was deliberately avoided here, since, unlike in warfare, communication contains a core that has to do with conviction.
Of course, Professor Zhang’s “no-communication” option is a conceivable alternative if one can act from a standpoint of strength, certainty and temporal serenity (like China). But this cannot be transferred to other cases. As little as the legionnaire tactic of direct clashing forces, described above, cannot be successful today, so much more promising must be the thought of new digitally motivated, technology-supported means and bases of communication. The principles of cyber attacks are known to be based on the intention of destruction and disruption.
However, one has to ask oneself what one can do if one uses the destructive potential to something new and positive. More thought needs to be given to this aspect and future instructions for effective corporate communication need to focus on it.
With its accumulated intelligence, Europe has great opportunities to stand up to the USA. China copies and steals Western intelligence & technologies, not vice versa. That is, at least for the moment, reassuring to know. But the suggested silence (no visible content) of a possible Chinese communication policy must not give cause for calm but must be worrying if ignored.
Europe is posed to develop a matching European communication strategy in response. Different to Trump’s USA, Europe must accept China’s rise and see it as a win-win opportunity and not as an unintelligent zero-sum game, like Trump.
If it will become part of the Chinese communication tactics to leave us in the West in darkness about their country, we have to ask ourselves why it is that the Chinese do not consider Europe as an inaccessible cultural, historic and linguistic mess.
Our most gifted talents have to study Chinese culture and languages and bring light into the darkness, which theChinese want to protect.
A counter communication strategy has to become extremely long-term, realistic and culturally sensitive and must not be corrupted by typical US-quarterly-result, short-term thinking.
We European have to strive for a win-win and not for a zero-sum game solution (the latter suggested by Trump).
*Professor Zhang WeiWei is a teacher of international relations at Fudan University (China), and, amongst others, a visiting professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations.