The Use of Resource and Service Restriction for Political Control and Suppression of Dissent

In the complex web of governance that is participatory Democracy, the control of resources and
services has been employed as a potent tool for political control throughout history. Governments
and authoritative entities often resort to restricting access to essential resources and services to
maintain power and suppress dissent. We will look at the several ways in which the limitation of
resources and services has been used to control populations and stifle opposition within
communities and groups.

Access to information is a crucial aspect of any society, and governments, elected reps and political
parties recognise its power to shape opinions and mobilise dissent, to restrictive policies and
agendas. By controlling media outlets, including social media, censoring content, and restricting
access to the internet, authorities, elected reps and political parties manipulate the narrative,
gaslighting those who highlight issues or responses to ongoing concerns and limit the spread of
dissenting voices. Totalitarian regimes often employ these tactics to create a controlled information
environment that serves their interests, but despite what some wish you to believe it is a common
policy with participatory democracies and movements, access to unfiltered or uncensored
information is a threat to the narrative of administrations and the technology of political control.

Limiting access to economic resources is a potent method of controlling dissent. Governments may
selectively distribute resources, contracts, and job opportunities based on political allegiance,
creating a system where citizens are economically dependent on the ruling regime. By manipulating
economic conditions, authorities can effectively discourage opposition and coerce compliance.

Governments, administration, parties, and elected reps can wield considerable influence by
controlling access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and public utilities. By selectively
providing or denying these services, authorities can reward loyalty and punish dissent. This strategy
not only impacts individual well-being but also instills fear of losing essential services, creating a
passive and compliant population, when there is a response from the communities to the restriction
or loss of services the narrative becomes one of apportioning blame to another elected rep or
parties not affiliated to the administration who restricted the services, racism or outright xenophobic
rhetoric is often the means by which the narrative is changed, the subtle use of terminology,
undocumented military aged males, non-nationals, illegal migrants, etcetera, a means of changing
not just the narrative but the focus, from the administration cuts resources and services to these
people are the reason your services are stretched!

Governments may strategically allocate resources to certain regions or demographics, favouring

those who support the ruling regime, favouring politicians who always support government policies
by announcing added resources due to the “hard work of that rep” This creates a divided society
where loyalty is rewarded, and dissenters face deprivation. The control over essential resources like
water, food, energy, health, and education allows authorities to dictate terms and suppress any
potential opposition.

The enactment of laws and regulations that restrict the activities of certain groups or individuals is
another common method of resource and service control. Governments may pass legislation that
curtails the freedom of assembly, limits the right to protest, or criminalises dissenting opinions,
effectively stifling opposition through legal means, this is also achieved by narrative control within
the media.

Advancements in technology have given governments powerful tools for monitoring and controlling
dissent. Surveillance systems, facial recognition, and data tracking enable authorities to identify and
target individuals or groups engaged in dissent. This creates an environment where citizens feel
constantly monitored, discouraging open opposition.

The restriction of resources and services as a means of political control and stifling dissent is a
pervasive phenomenon in various forms across the globe. While governments argue that these
measures are necessary for maintaining stability, they often come at the cost of individual freedoms
and human rights. Recognising these tactics is crucial for fostering a more informed and vigilant
citizenry, capable of safeguarding democratic principles in the face of such challenges. The balance
between maintaining order and respecting the rights of citizens remains a delicate and critical aspect
of governance. We often here that they system is broken in response to concerns around these
government tactics, but the facts are that the system as built and maintained is working exactly as
envisioned by those in power.