I read the book of Ingrid Betancourt “La rage au coeur” when I was at high school. I was fascinated by that woman that appeared so sweet, but turned out to be so strong. I thought that nobody in our century would have been so brave to risk her life to express her ideas and to fight against of corruption.
Some weeks after I finished that wonderful book, on February 24th 2002, I heard she had been kidnapped by the FARC. Since then, I have been collecting all the articles and news I could find about her.
I have always thought that in politics it is always necessary to make compromises and that for most of the politicians it is impossible to give clear cut answers. But no, Ingrid was different. When she was a deputy, she was an ecception. She reporterd the involvement of Ernesto Samper (the Prestident at that time) with the narcotrafic of the Cali Cartel and she spoke out against all the other politicians that were involved. She continued with her actions even if her life was threatened and even if she had to depart from her family (that was also threatened). Her objective was to win the presidential elections on May 2002 and fight against drug cartels and corruption for the sake of her country. I guess she would have make it, because she is an hero.
Go Ingrid!
Small and large countries play different game. A giant might dictate the rules of trading and war, but the small ones might bright by the imagination. But countries’ success is not only about politics and economy. It’s also branding - whether you and your country are desirable enough.
Today, the world is one market. Simon Anholt writes in the Monocle that the advance of globalisation means that every country, city and region, rich or poor, competes for its share of the world’s consumers, tourists, investors, students, entrepreneurs, sporting and cultural events, and for the attention and respect of the international media, of other governments and of people in other countries.
According to Paula Scher the USA is suffering from very poor image and low approval overall the world. Elsewhere Africa suffers from “continent brand effect” as the little knowledge on individual nations allows the continental picture dominate. But what the Switzerland holds? An image of mountainous and safe, thou expensive tax paradise?
Branding the nations is not fancy advertisements or PR speeches. Branding a nation is acting and actually changing the country. The perceived image might stay short while, but the experienced one lasts forever. If your river water is not clean enough to drink, your country is polluted. A beautiful poster won’t change the reality.
A good image seduces investments and tourists. Unfortunately politicians seem to be bad branding people. And bad decision makers as well. Otherwise all the countries would enjoy the status of Switzerland. Wouldn’t they?
I spent the last weekend in St. Moritz (CH) and I have asked about houses there. No way the value of the houses there is going to suffer from fluctuations.
It is pretty hard to get a house there not only because of the high prices, but also because if you are a foreigner, you are not free to buy whatever you want. In fact, by law, only a percentage of the houses can be sold to foreigners. I happened to talk with somebody that has been waiting to get a house there for 5 years.
Indeed, very good policy to avoid indiscriminate construction investments with the consequent pillage of the landscape, but also a very clever way to exploit the existing structures (hotels, restaurants, etc) and to avoid that the place gets invaded, losing its reputation of high level holiday place.
These Swiss are clever!
Theathers, operas and ballets are often funded or at least substituted by the government, as culture wouldn’t be able to support itself. How to define culture events then? Hollywood movies are commercial, thus not every one of them a commercial success. But there is also something in between. Movies such as David Lynch’s Inland Empire and Mulholland Drive are arguable arts, yet commercial success stories.
A piece of art might turn out to be profitable. Thus not all the commercial intensions turn cash flowing successes. Outside the Hollywood hills profitable “arts” might be scarcity, but those exist. Take the Bolshoi Ballet in Moscow, Vienna Philharmonic orchestra, or fine art names as Manolo Valdes, Salvador Dali or Andy Warhol. Big brands - this case most traditional or shocking brands rule. But also profitable names need to pleasure the audience - the revenue source. And we have seen to what it leads: Hollywoodication of copy-paste movies and television shows.
Might be a time for a debate, but government art support are necesity to keep the art alive. Whether art is biased by commerce or government, there always will be the rebellious ones.
Latest Comments
RSSNo comments