In New Zealand we are familiar with the tools of propaganda-by-stealth. The way it works is like this. A government (usually left-wing in orientation) wants to move society towards its longer term goals. In order to do so, it must persuade the electorate to where it becomes sympathetic with, and supportive of, its programme.
Infiltrating the schools is an obvious method. It can work, but unfortunately, it has a very long lead time. Usually the current crop of politicians and government administrations have long since departed for the netherworld before the crop can be reaped. More quick payback and progress is required.
In New Zealand the following method was employed by the previous Labour administration, led by Helen Clarke, a left-wing politician who had a very clear view of where she believed society should be heading. Firstly, fund pressure groups whose ideology and sympathies are similar to your own.
Where no such pressure groups exist, encourage them into existence through your networks, and ensure they are funded from the public purse. In addition, ensure that key (like-minded) personnel are placed on the boards and as executive officers of such groups. Then, when proposing new measures, even radical changes, go through the charade of seeking public comment. Get the groups whom you have financed to "walk the talk", as it were. Then, after "extensive consultation" present to the electorate the summary of advice, which, hey presto, precisely accords with the direction in which the government wants to move. But this time, it can be presented as a direction which the public want. The media, of course, are largely complicit in this legerdemain.
The UK Institute of Economic Affairs tells us that this modus operandi has been operating in Europe for a long time, in an expose/report entitled, Euro Puppets: The European Commission Remaking of Civil Society.
With public confidence in the European project waning, the idea of initiating a ‘civil dialogue’ with the public emerged in the mid-1990s as a way of bolstering the EU’s democratic legitimacy. Citizens have not been consulted directly, however. Instead they have been ventriloquised through ‘sock puppet’ charities, think tanks and other ‘civil society’ groups which have been hand-picked and financed by the European Commission (EC). These organisations typically lobby for closer European integration, bigger EU budgets and more EU regulation.
The composition of ‘civil society’ at the EU level is largely dictated by which groups the Commission chooses to fund. There has been a bias towards centre-left organisations, with a particular emphasis on those promoting policies that are unpopular with the public, such as increasing foreign aid, restricting lifestyle freedoms and further centralising power within EU institutions. The EC’s favoured civil society organisations are also marked by a homogeneous worldview and similarity of jargon. The literature and websites of these groups suffocate the reader with vague rhetoric about ‘stakeholders’, ‘sustainability’, ‘social justice’, ‘capacity building’,‘fundamental rights’, ‘diversity’, ‘equity’ and ‘active citizenship’.
Many of the groups which receive the Commission’s patronage would struggle to exist without statutory funding. For example, Women in Europe for a Common Future received an EC grant of €1,219,213 in 2011, with a further €135,247 coming from national governments. This statutory funding made up 93 per cent of its total income while private donations contributed €2,441 (0.2 per cent) and member contributions just €825 (0.06 per cent). There is virtually no funding for organisations which seriously question the Commission’s direction of travel. By contrast, groups that favour closer union and greater centralisation are generously funded. The ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme which ‘gives citizens the chance to participate in making Europe more united, to develop a European identity, to foster a sense of ownership of the EU, and to enhance tolerance and mutual understanding’ has a €229 million budget for 2014-20.
In the EU, the ordinary citizen pays twice for the lobbying of concentrated interests. He pays first for the funds to be given to the special interest group and pays again for the policies and regulations which come about as a result. Because these costs are spread thinly across the population, it is not worth his while protesting, especially since the EU covers a huge area with widely dispersed citizens speaking different languages and lacking information about the political process. The interest groups, by contrast, are heavily concentrated in Brussels, speak many languages and are well connected to politicians and the media. Not only do they extract rent from a large population, but they advertise the fact that the costs are widely dispersed in an effort to play down the size of their budgets.
No comments:
Post a Comment