Is it the time to lobby?
by Dima on August 16, 2010
in global, governance, industry, observation, policy, politics, technology
It’s been quiet on this blog for a while, so I decided to share an observation based on some conversations I recently had at one of the Internet governance meetings. The conversations were about ICT companies and the point was that while Western companies are extremely enthusiastic about emerging markets, they do not consider their regulatory systems with the same rigor as they do in the developed world. In other words, while in the developed countries these companies invest considerable resources in working with the governments and lobbying, in the developing countries their efforts are primarily in marketing. Even when they do work with governments, it is mostly done through the marketing departments where the governments are viewed primarily as costumers, less as regulators.
I heard similar observations from a number of industry players and also from a government official. I listened and “filed” these observations, but they were brought back to life with the recent explosion of the BlackBerry story. You may know that the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and now also India and a number of other countries, are threatening to ban BlackBerry unless RIM allows them access to the encrypted email data of BlackBerry users, stored on the company’s servers. India gave RIM an ultimatum until the end of the month to comply and the rumor is that the Indian government has similar plans for Google, Skype, and perhaps others.
I wonder how did RIM find itself in such a situation? Will other global technological companies find themselves in a similar situation soon too? Peter Svensson writes in Washington Post today:
“Threats by the governments of India, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to shut down BlackBerry’s corporate e-mail services reflect unease about a technology that the U.S. government also took a while to accept. The foreign governments are essentially a decade behind in coming to terms with encryption, a technology that’s fundamental to the Internet as a medium of commerce. (…) RIM, the company behind the BlackBerry, doesn’t have years to wait for foreign governments to adopt the more relaxed U.S. stance toward encryption.”
I assume Svensson is right about his historical perspective; after all, writing about this is his bread an butter. At the same time, given that all the governments currently having an issue with BlackBerry are in developing countries, I think he is missing the point made by the people I talked to about the Western companies’ attitudes to the emerging markets’ governments.
It did not take the US government years to figure out its stand on encryption on its own. On the contrary, this position is a result of years of dialogue, argument, and debates between the government and the various interest groups, primarily the industry, through its lobbying activities, and the civil society. We can see a similar discussion taking place these days around the issue of net neutrality.
It seems to me that until the RIMs, Googles, and Skypes of this world won’t take the regulators in the developing world as seriously as they take the governments back home, we will continue seeing more “BlackBerry” cases. Until the multinational MICT companies will not engage in a meaningful way with the local governments in the emerging markets, the barriers to their activities there will continue growing and become more sophisticated, especially when it comes to such a politicized area as information.
So, I wonder if it is the time for these companies to start lobbying in the developing world just the way they are lobbying here. While I am aware of the potentially harmful influences of lobbying, it is an integral part of the policymaking mechanism and, for better or worse, it also has an educational impact on the policymakers. At the end of the day, usually those are the governments that are catching up with technology, while the industry is ahead of the curve.
What do you think? Is it the time to lobby?
Are you really saying you think the big corporations should start lobbying countries’ governments? Like this kind of thing needs grassroots/viral/bottom-up encouragement and support? I am no fan of the Saudi government or some of the others, but jeez, man, google needs no extra help either ….
That’s the thing. What I learned from those conversations was that they actually do not lobby in developing countries; they only sell there. Of course lobbying has this awful image and it can be disastrous to the user, but it is part of the system and everybody do that in every regime (and maybe using different labels). You need the commercial players’ lobbying just like you need consumer rights and human rights advocates to lobby to keep the other players in tact. Perhaps, lobbying is not the right word… see it as an engagement with or an outreach to the government, which currently isn’t happening enough in the emerging economies. I think if there was a practice of engagement with the government in these places (call it lobbying, outreach or anything else), we would not have the current BlackBerry situation. This is just my observation…
I guess my point is, in the kind of government where “consumer rights” and “human rights advocates” are already off the table, we do not need the corporations getting closer to the government. Unless you think that those governments will really yield power/money for nothing….
Bottom line. I don’t trust corporations or authoritarian governments. Seems pointless to call for their better relationship…
I see where you are coming from, but I think it is not that black and white.
The more I see how these things work the more i think there are greater shared interests between the civil society and the business sector than what we tend to think. At the end of the day, a mainstream business prefers to work in a transparent system with clear rules, as opposed to a shady and uncharted territory, which means higher risk. In other words, the business sector at large should be just as interested in government accountability as the civil society is.
I also think that lobbying is not an equivalent to bribing. It does have an educational-persuasive component to it. Not to say that it cannot be abused. Of course it can. But I think it can also contribute to establishing a tradition of the government talking to other players, including, in the long run, civil society.
I admire your positive outlook, but I am not sure it is consistent with the history of business. But then, I have spent the last month reading Howard Zinn.
:)
I probably need to read up a bit on that topic, but I am not sure it is inconsistent. I agree that it is inconsistent with the public perception of the big bad business, but it seems to me that on the ground it is much messier. Not that the “business” is necessarily good, but it also isn’t inherently bad and in a system can be a force for positive change. But that’s just me :)
Business is not inherently bad…agreed. Almost nothing really is. I am sure I can find a non negligible group of people that will say that authoritarian governments are not inherently bad either. But we have to live with these things not in there “inherentness” but in their actual forms….
Still…I am not kidding or being ironic, I do admire your positivity…
Hugs (they are inherently good…maybe)
Thank you, comrade! I think hugs are inherently good :)
As to businesses and governments, i completely agree with you that we have to live with these things in their actual forms. This is why I wrote the post. I think we just see their actual forms differently.