In recent years, a new phrase has entered the political lexicon: “whole-of-society.” On the surface, it sounds benign, even collaborative—a term that suggests a collective effort to tackle societal challenges. However, as Jacob Siegel’s investigative work reveals, this concept may be far more insidious than it first appears. Let’s dive into what the “whole-of-society” approach really means and why it’s stirring up so much controversy.
The idea gained traction during the Obama administration, initially as part of countering violent extremism (CVE). The concept was simple: the government, alongside corporations, NGOs, and citizens, would work together to prevent terrorism. It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? But what if this seemingly cooperative strategy is actually a mechanism for unprecedented levels of control and surveillance?
At its core, the “whole-of-society” approach blurs the lines between state and non-state actors. It effectively enlists companies, civic organisations, and even your neighbours to monitor, influence, and sometimes enforce government policies. Imagine a scenario where your bank denies you services because your social media activity doesn’t align with the prevailing political ideology, or where community groups ostracise you for expressing dissent. This is not a far-fetched dystopian vision; it’s the reality that some argue we are inching towards.
One of the most troubling aspects of this approach is its reliance on mass surveillance. Initially justified as a way to detect potential extremists, it has now evolved into a tool for monitoring and controlling the broader population. The idea of surveilling individuals who have not committed any crime—based on the mere suspicion that they might—is eerily reminiscent of the pre-crime concept popularised by the film Minority Report. This type of surveillance raises critical questions about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for abuse.
Siegel’s analysis goes further, suggesting that the “whole-of-society” model is not just about surveillance but also about consolidating power. The approach has been used to justify censorship on social media, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 US election. Under the guise of protecting public health or preventing disinformation, government officials and aligned “experts” have embedded themselves within social media platforms, leading to the largest campaign of domestic censorship in American history. The chilling effect on free speech and open discourse is profound.
The fusion of state and corporate power, as seen in this approach, is deeply concerning. Historically, this merging of government and private interests has been associated with authoritarian regimes—fascism being a prime example. The Italian dictator Mussolini famously described fascism as a system where “everything is within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” The “whole-of-society” approach, with its totalising reach, seems alarmingly similar.
So, where do we go from here? For those who value democratic principles and the separation of powers, the challenge is clear: we must find ways to dismantle this “whole-of-society” machinery. This means restoring the independence of civil society and ensuring that corporations and NGOs are not mere extensions of the state. It’s about safeguarding our freedoms and preventing the slide into a society where every aspect of our lives is monitored, controlled, and regulated by an unseen hand.
In the end, understanding the “whole-of-society” approach is crucial for anyone concerned about the future of democracy and individual liberty. As this strategy continues to shape our world, we must remain vigilant, question its motives, and resist its more authoritarian impulses.
