A Peruvian lobbyist and I spoke about the similarities of lobbying in our respective countries. There are differences. Peru is unicameral while 49/50 US state legislatures are bicameral, Nebraska being unicameral. Political corruption there is rampant, as it is in almost all 3rd world countries. Legislative procedures vary. And international NGOs are attempting to force values upon Peru that this lobbyist and his clients greatly resent as contrary to Peruvian culture. He was effusive in praise of Donald Trump for Trump’s “patriotismo no globalismo” (patriotism not globalism).
However, as to lobbying, the human soul, its weaknesses, and vices are pretty much the same everywhere. I conclude “similarity” of politicians’ souls from my own lobbying in many US states and DC. But do my observations hold internationally that lobbying politicians (not deputy ministers as one lobbies in Canadian and European parliaments) is persuasion, technical facts are pretty much meaningless to politicians, and a good lobbyist appeals to a lawmaker’s self-interest? Based upon our dinner conversation, seems like they do.
If the similarity hypothesis holds, then I suggested to him that the threshold question of lobbying in the US likely is the same one in Peru. That question is, “Why would that targeted lawmaker give me his or her vote?” Until a lobbyist can answer that question, he or she won’t likely get the vote either in Peru or the US.
He suggested that Peruvians learning the Campaign Method for More Effective State Government Affairs could be useful for their lobbyists and suggested I bring the training to Peru. Today he returned to Peru and says once home he will inquire as to interest. Students from Russia and Brazil have taken my training for use there. But this could be the first chance to test broadly the universality of the Campaign Method – and the universality of the human soul.