There's one form of political maneuvering that's sometimes used by governments that doesn't get paid much attention nor commented on.
Suppose that the parliament would want to pass a controversial law that's quite sure to enrage the public and cause a shitstorm (and, perhaps, even endanger the current parliament in the next elections). If parliament would just make the law proposal as-is, the press and the public would certainly take notice, and a huge controversy and protest would ensue.
But the parliament really wants that law to be passed. So how to circumvent that little problem?
The solution is to "hide" that controversial law proposal under an even more controversial one.
Law proposals are seldom short and simple, presenting just one little short law change. They are often very long, with dozens and dozens of points and changes. So the tactic is to deliberately add one that's ten times more controversial than the actual law that they want to pass.
This is a diversion tactic: Now the press and the public will be enraged by that decoy law proposal, and all the furor and protests will be aimed at it, and everybody will only be paying attention to that one. Everybody's attention will be drawn away from that actual law they are trying to pass "under the radar".
When the press and the public have vented enough about that decoy proposal, parliament will "revise" it and remove that controversial part of it... and the furor will quiet down... and nobody will notice that actual law, because they didn't pay attention to it. Now it passes furtively, without people noticing. They were distracted by that deliberately-controversial decoy law proposal and didn't pay attention to the actual one, hidden in plain sight elsewhere in the law proposal.
Next time when there's a huge controversy about a new law proposal in your country, and it gets revised, with that controversial part removed or changed, and this revised version passes and becomes law, try reading the whole proposal and see if you can spot this tactic being used. Was there something else in the law proposal that they were trying to hide with the controversy?
Suppose that the parliament would want to pass a controversial law that's quite sure to enrage the public and cause a shitstorm (and, perhaps, even endanger the current parliament in the next elections). If parliament would just make the law proposal as-is, the press and the public would certainly take notice, and a huge controversy and protest would ensue.
But the parliament really wants that law to be passed. So how to circumvent that little problem?
The solution is to "hide" that controversial law proposal under an even more controversial one.
Law proposals are seldom short and simple, presenting just one little short law change. They are often very long, with dozens and dozens of points and changes. So the tactic is to deliberately add one that's ten times more controversial than the actual law that they want to pass.
This is a diversion tactic: Now the press and the public will be enraged by that decoy law proposal, and all the furor and protests will be aimed at it, and everybody will only be paying attention to that one. Everybody's attention will be drawn away from that actual law they are trying to pass "under the radar".
When the press and the public have vented enough about that decoy proposal, parliament will "revise" it and remove that controversial part of it... and the furor will quiet down... and nobody will notice that actual law, because they didn't pay attention to it. Now it passes furtively, without people noticing. They were distracted by that deliberately-controversial decoy law proposal and didn't pay attention to the actual one, hidden in plain sight elsewhere in the law proposal.
Next time when there's a huge controversy about a new law proposal in your country, and it gets revised, with that controversial part removed or changed, and this revised version passes and becomes law, try reading the whole proposal and see if you can spot this tactic being used. Was there something else in the law proposal that they were trying to hide with the controversy?
Comments
Post a Comment