Like the majority of candidates and parties, all around the world, he invested heavily both in time and money, on communicating online. This was the case during the 2008 Presidential campaign. The emphasis then had been on Facebook, while the latest campaign focused on Social Media as a whole.

Is there any relation between winning an election and online presence? Are heavy spenders on web activities more likely to do better in the political arena?

It seems that Obama championed the Social Media by an impressive lead versus Romney. He communicated policy agendas, feedback from the campaign trail, human interest stories, photo-ops. Literally, he exploited Social Media’s unique features of intimacy, speed, involvement as fully as possible.

A few figures should shed some light. As a result of an integrated online campaign which used Social Media and other platforms, Obama ended up with 32 million Facebook fans and 21 million Twitter followers.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney had 12 million Facebook fans and only 1.7 million followers on Twitter.

Who would disagree that the huge lead in Social Media boosted Barack Obama’s campaign?

In a number of European countries, the situation indicates that incumbents and their parties tend to enjoy higher Social Media followings than the ones not in office.

Of course, in order to achieve this, a devoted, highly professional Social Media guru team is required. There must be a clear and precise Social Media strategy beforehand. Contrary to the belief that Social Media is based on impulse and enthusiasm, if there is no plan, the desired following won’t be achieved.

Could we say with certainty that he who controls the web, controls the game? I am yet to witness the contrary!

Robert Pefanis is a communications specialist, lecturer at the University of Indianapolis, Athens.

The first part was devoted to arguments on regional operation, the real economy and production networks, as well as the characteristics of the economic integration in East Asia. The second part was about the European Union, the debt crisis and the necessity of political leadership addressing financial reform to overcome the crisis. Then views were exchanged on East Asian economy, definitions of East Asia, the prospects of the Chinese economy, and the implication of the economic integration in East Asia for Europe etc.

Interestingly, all participants agreed that political will is the most important factor for crisis management and further economic integration, both in Europe and in East Asia. While I was writing this, it was already known that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel is to visit Athens tomorrow (Oct. 9). Besides the obvious feelings of insecurity and the patriotic symbolisms the visit will produce for all Greeks and particularly Athens inhabitants, I could not but consider the obvious: a political solution is on the way. I am not sure whether it will prove to be beneficial towards “further economic integration” or it is a way the German leader to appear bailing out Greeks on her own; again, in political terms.

The stalemate with the troika has to do with trust. Troika head representatives have been called many things in this country, but being inconsistent is not one of them. Since the beginning of negotiations in 2010, troika people have been steadily arguing for two parallel courses of action: cutting expenses and forwarding structural changes (to liberalise the market, invite competition and boost growth). Cuts did occur, reforms never happened. Either due to political cost or unionist phobia, structural changes have never been properly dealt with, remaining suppressed by partisan interests and clientelistic concerns. Hence today’s impasse.

Real growth (not the one driven by consumption and loans), economic integration, daring steps forward towards the unification of countries that share common interests, truly need political courage. Politicians need to be brave and think ahead; what they also need is the support of their peoples by regaining their trust.

This is where politics draw its power, people. Either in East Asia or in Europe, political solutions remain political when people are willing to play along. If they do not agree with politicians’ moves, then the latter are on their own, alienating themselves from society, thus failing to serve the [perception of] common goal.

Greek police and other security forces are bracing for Angela Merkel’s visit tomorrow. Demonstrations, sit-ins and heroisms in front of the German embassy in Athens are already scheduled, perhaps accompanied by the occasional riot activity. This is people’s way to express their outrage but hardly constitutes “solution” material. Even if the package is agreed, the symbolism for the government will be hard to read.

All participants in Japanese Embassy’s symposium agreed that political solutions are the way to move forward. I would add that political solutions should be decided by people themselves. If more integration is the way to go (in Europe and East Asia) then people (instead of politicians) should be asked whether they are willing to turn their countries into peripheral geographical entities of a centrally managed bureaucracy.

Finally, although Europe is much older in the integration game, I would say that the chances for real progress in the integration field lie more on the East Asia side. Both philosophically and technologically, they have all necessary elements to put forward a whole new paradigm of economic integration, based on 21st century politics; namely based on elements of fairness, honest cooperation, advanced sense of social responsibility. In order something like this to succeed, it should be grassroots; and on the web. Then mainstream politics could follow, framing the drive with ‘political solutions’. In the social networks era, cross-country political initiatives need to start from the base.

On-going online democracy could prove much more powerful than any old fashioned political initiative; Europe needs to understand this as well.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of Alyunaniya.com