Influence Engineering in Politics

Influence engineers are individuals or organizations that specialize in using various tactics to shape the opinions, beliefs, and behaviours of other people and societies, often through the use of technology and data-driven technologies. In the political and diplomatic sphere, influence engineering can have significant impacts on election outcomes, public opinion, and international relations.

One of the key tactics used by influence engineers in politics is social media manipulation. This involves using bots, fake accounts, and targeted advertising to spread propaganda, disinformation, and other types of messaging to specific audiences. For example, in one of the published controversies during the 2016 US presidential election, it was alleged that Russian operatives used social media manipulation to disseminate false information and sow discord among American voters.

Another tactic used by influence engineers in politics is micro-targeting. This involves using data analytics to identify specific groups of voters and create highly targeted messaging that appeals to their interests and concerns. Micro-targeting can be highly effective in mobilizing voters and swaying public opinion, as it allows political campaigns to tailor their messages to specific audiences and appeal to their emotions and values.

Influence engineering can also play a role in international diplomacy, where the use of soft power can be a powerful tool in shaping the opinions and behaviors of other nations. Soft power refers to the ability to influence others through cultural and ideological means, rather than through military or economic coercion. In the context of international diplomacy, soft power can be used to build alliances, promote democracy and human rights, and foster economic and social development.

One example of influence engineering in international diplomacy is public diplomacy, which involves using various communication and cultural exchange programs to promote a nation's image and values abroad.

In Europe, the use of nudging techniques to promote environmentally-friendly behavior, encourages people to make decisions that are in their best interest. Several governments have used ‘nudging techniques’ to promote sustainable behaviors, such as reducing energy consumption, promoting recycling, and encouraging the use of public transportation.

In the Netherlands, the government used a ‘nudge’ to reduce littering in train stations by painting images of flies on urinals, which reduced "spillage" by 80 percent. In the UK, the government launched a campaign called "Love Food Hate Waste" which used nudges to encourage people to reduce food waste by providing information on how to store food properly, and promoting the use of smaller plates to encourage smaller portion sizes.

Asian countries use gamification is a form of influence engineering. It involves using game-like elements such as points, badges, and leader boards to motivate people to engage in a desired behavior. Several organizations have used gamification to promote healthy life styles promoting exercise, healthy eating, and getting enough sleep.

Japan launched a campaign called "Metabo Watch" which used a gamified app to encourage people to exercise and maintain a healthy weight. The app allowed users to track their daily steps and compete with friends to reach fitness goals. Similarly, in Singapore, the Health Promotion Board launched an app called "Healthy 365" which encourages people to eat more fruits and vegetables, drink adequate amounts of water, and get enough sleep.

 However, it's worth noting that influence engineering in politics and international diplomacy is not without controversy. Critics argue that these tactics can be used to undermine democracy and manipulate public opinion, and that they often rely on unethical or even illegal means to achieve their goals.

One negative example of influence engineering is the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, where in 2018, it was revealed that the political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, had harvested the personal data of millions of Facebook users without their consent to create targeted political advertisements during the 2016 US Presidential Election. The scandal revealed how the firm had used sophisticated influence engineering techniques to manipulate voters' perceptions and thought processes through targeted messaging.

The Chinese government developed a social credit system that uses a range of data sources, including online activity, to rate citizens' trustworthiness and compliance with social norms. This system incentivizes citizens to conform to desired social behavior and punishes those who deviate from them.

As such, it's important for individuals and organizations to be aware of the risks and limitations of influence engineering, and to use these tactics responsibly and ethically.

 

 

 

 

The Technocratic Government of India

 

So what exactly is a technocrat anyway?

Destined to save our economy and our country, we Indians have been graced with the appearance of a technocratic government since last seven years, where economist Dr. Manmohan Singh (PhD) has been the prime minister. As the hero of our day – the UPA technocratic government - is largely unknown to many of our people, we summon a brief dialogue on technocratic government

Q: What's a technocratic government?

A: To answer this question we first need to be clear about how governments are formed in parliamentary systems. First - in a parliamentary system, the government must be approved by the parliament. Often this will require the agreement of more than one political party, resulting in a coalition of parties to support the government. As part of this "coalition agreement", the heads of ministries (or what are ‘Ministers’) are allocated to the different parties, who place representatives from their parties as the heads of their respective ministries. Moreover, the parties agree on a "Prime Minister" to head the government, usually but not always from the largest party in the coalition. Most of the time, the identity of this "Prime Minister" - conditional on election results - is known during the election campaign.

Q: Ok, so what's really a technocratic government?

A: Technically, a technocratic government is one in which the ministers are not career politicians; in fact, in some cases they may not even be elected members of parliament at all. They are instead supposed to be "experts" in the fields of their respective ministries. So the classic example is that the Finance Minister would be someone with an academic background in economics who had worked for years at the IMF, but has not previously run for elective office or been heavily involved in election campaigns.

Q: Is it required for the Prime Minister also to be a "technocrat"?

A: Not necessarily. You could have a prime minister from a major party who heads a technocratic government (i.e., most of the ministers meet the definition laid out above), or you could have a technocratic prime minister as well. In the current UPA government, the Prime Minister is both a technocrat and an economist. [To be clear: there is nothing in the definition of a technocratic government that requires it be led by an economist!]

Q: Why did the UPA appoint a technocratic Prime Minister, two times in a row?

A: The practical reason is often because a government has lost the support of the people who elect them to parliament, but also for various other reasons (including legal, pragmatic or political). If the parties in the parliament can't agree to form a normal government, then sometimes they can all agree to support a technocratic government. Just to make things even more complicated, it is possible to have a ‘partisan caretaker prime minister’ (which is basically what is going on in India right now), which then would not be known as a technocratic government, but instead is often called a "lame duck government".

Q: So why would elected politicians ever turn over power to unelected technocrats? Doesn't that go against the facts of everything we think we know about politicians: that they are above all else interested in holding elected office for self gain?

A: This brings us to the crux of the matter in terms of current developments. What seems to be going on is that a "received wisdom" is developing that only technocratic governments can carry out the "painful reforms necessary" to save our country. The theory here is that no major party is going to want to pay the costs of instituting painful policies alone. If this is the case, then one way around this predicament is to appoint a technocratic government that is not "of" any party but is supported by all the parties. In this way, blame can essentially be shared, and government can do the right thing, whatever that may be.

Q: Does it work?

A: Does anyone know?. First, politicians are not particularly good at "sharing blame", which will make the temptation for any of a number of major parties to undercut the technocratic government for political gains. Second, even if mainstream parties get behind a technocratic government, that doesn't mean fringe parties will as well. Indeed, a technocratic government supported by all of the mainstream parties seems a perfect recipe for the rise of non-mainstream parties.

Q: OK, but even with those caveats, technocratic government still sounds pretty good! Why doesn't everyone have one?

A: Well, there is this one small problem, which is that in a democracy; people are supposed to elect their rulers. Since, by definition, a technocratic government does not get elected for office, it is hard to call a country with a technocratic government, a democracy. Instead, we have a system where the people only get to vote for people that they send into Parliament; who then get to decide on who the real leaders of the government will be.

Q: Will technocratic governments save India?

A: The UPA made it possible for certain policies to be implemented in the short-term. But India’s longer-term problems are going to need to be solved (or not solved) by India’s elected officials. Democracy is about accountability. While UPA has made it possible to duck accountability, long-term policies are going to have been enacted - or at the very least maintained - by elected officials. The UPA technocratic government has failed miserably on most accounts and will never be an effective Government ‘of the people, for the people, by the people’.