To the point: Mudworking - displeasing favors

Much has been asked and clarified on the matter so far, marveled and grumbled: What on earth does Switzerland have to do with Kazakhstan? How can we be useful to "the Kazakhs"? And which of them?
 

What has been little illuminated so far is the role of the communications agency Burson Marsteller (BM) in this affair. It is known that companies such as BM, FurrerHugi, the Dynamics Group or the consultants engage in public affairs and lobbying. It is unclear how exactly they do this, by what means, which mandates they accept - and whether they also reject some that appear shady or are backed by people whose concerns should remain theirs alone.

First and foremost, Christa Markwalder deserves a lot of thanks. Because by stumbling, she has uncovered details of political work that need to be thought about. The debate about what politicians must do - ask and think -, what they are allowed to do - refuse mandates - and what they should absolutely refrain from doing - make themselves common to a cause, even if it is a good one - is in full swing.

Spontaneously, one asks oneself: Shouldn't lobbyist Marie-Louise Baumann of BM have been suspicious because the communication with "the Kazakhs" ran exclusively through Dmitry Belousov, the director of the tobacco multinational Philip Morris? But the question is wrong. Because it assumes the fundamental innocence and good intentions of all involved. But anyone who knows that Baumann also holds a consulting mandate from Philip Morris and thus knew exactly who Belousov is, must realize that we are not dealing with innocent lambs, but with people who know exactly what intrigues they and the others are involved in. They know exactly how to take advantage of the cluelessness of others. Ostensibly, the disputed proposal was about strengthening the liberal opposition in Kazakhstan, which Markwalder probably actually believed. De facto, it was about hunting down the authoritarian Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev against renegade oligarchs, specifically, for example, the extradition of Viktor Khrapunov, who lives in Geneva. This is not networking, but mudworking. And suddenly we're on the set of Alone Against the Mafia.

The matter is delicate anyway, embarrassing for Markwalder and the Swiss political establishment. And because professional communicators like BM also play a (most likely) unsavory role, Markwalder-Gate becomes interesting for us as well. BM writes on its website: "We accompany you through parliamentary processes from consultation to legislation. If necessary, we provide the necessary background noise. In the traditional media and on all relevant social media channels."

I wanted to shed some light, to know whether this ground noise follows any guidelines, whether there are professional ethical principles for lobbying, how lobbyists work exactly, what enables them to influence political processes. I asked Matthias Graf, CEO of BM, for an interview. He referred to the ongoing internal investigation of the Markwalder/Baumann affair and declined to answer my questions. All I wanted to know was: For whom, for which countries does Burson Marsteller still do political lobbying? Public affairs appears to the public as mumbling, influence on the edge of the legal - what do you say to that? How closely do you scrutinize the mandates you take on? Are there also public affairs mandates that BM rejects? Questions that do not affect BM's internal investigation of the Kazakhstan affair.

So why did Graf refuse to answer my questions? This can mean several things and in any case casts a bad light on BM: 1. Graf himself has no idea what happens in the field of public affairs/lobbying under the umbrella of BM. 2. the possible answers would reveal mandates of BM that should not be disclosed at any price - after all, political lobbying is very lucrative and those who pay expect silence. 3. there are neither criteria nor limits for accepting mandates, the main thing is that the earnings are right. I suspect all three points apply.

Why else would it be so explosive to answer questions, to disclose mandates, to give clear information about connections and networks? Obviously, we are not talking about a pony farm, but about one huge mess. We'll stay tuned.

Anne-Friederike Heinrich, Editor-in-Chief [email protected]