WRITTEN ON December 12th, 2005 BY David Burke AND STORED IN Uncategorized

For examples of what can go wrong when the principles of marketing are applied to government, I would point to any number of articles on PR Watch, run by the Center for Media and Democracy. This article, for instance describes how direct marketing techniques have been combined with the political activism of the 1960s to imitate and undermine grassroots democracy. A “consent of the governed” can not only be manufactured, it can be ordered up like fast food.

Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, always felt that his profession was a natural extension of democracy. But at some point the tools of persuasion overwhelm the ability of citizens to exercise control. At some point, public relations and marketing techniques become undemocratic.

Defining that point is tricky. When Stauber and Rampton, who started PRWatch, wrote their book “Toxic Sludge is Good for You!”, they were embarassed to have to think like marketers and make sure it had the biggest possible launch. Then, just before publication, a waste disposal company asked them to rename the book because it really was planning to promote toxic sewage as safe for agriculture.

Tricky but not impossible. It is a safe bet, for instance, that a government who gives us ID cards and is able to track us everywhere while building individual profiles about us will have increased power to escape democratic pressure and manipulate opinion. If, as they have considered doing, they sell those profiles to private corporations, it is likely those corporations will enjoy the same new power. Maybe ordinary citizens can deal with all this, maybe not. But they will have no choice.

Even if the government means well, this view of individual citizens as customers will change the rules of democracy. It can undermine real participation. A citizen database linking profiles of individuals to data from private corporations and any number of media campaigns is pretty much the ultimate technology of persuasion – a nuclear bomb of spin. The traditions we depend on to tame such persuasion rely, in part, on inefficiency. The legal system, especially trial by jury, is the most important example. It remains deliberately inefficient because it must first be just. And the measured pace of discussion in Parliamentary subcommittees has been welcomed as an antidote to the great efficiency of televised sound-bites.

If government is going to interact with us in a personalised, centralised way, I would like to hear about goals other than efficiency. Just so I understand their priorities.