Controlling the Narrative – Development Communication in Need of Open Debate

In the world of strategic communications, particularly within politics and development cooperation, there’s an increasing emphasis on “controlling the narrative.” This is not an abstract concern—it is playing out in real-time, most notably in the standoff surrounding USAID, fuelled by the policy shifts of the Trump administration and the disruptive influence of figures like Elon Musk. Without taking a stance on the political or ideological dimensions of this dispute, it is worth examining how both sides engage in narrative control, rather than meaningful engagement.

What stands out is that both camps—the critics of USAID, who argue that it was dismantled due to inefficiency, resistance to reform, and misalignment with public interest, and the pro-development cooperation side—are largely talking past each other. Critics raise concerns about inefficiency, alleged corruption, and a lack of responsiveness to the American public. However, from what I can observe, the pro-development side does not engage directly with these criticisms. Instead of addressing the core arguments—whether USAID has truly resisted reform, whether inefficiencies exist, or whether the public sees value in its work—the response is largely an assertion of their existing narrative along the overall purpose. This is a prime example of the consequences of extreme narrative control. Instead of a real debate, each side reinforces its own position, leaving the public with competing echo chambers rather than a chance for informed discussion.

The Fallacy of Total Control

One of the great ironies of modern communications is that, despite having more information available than ever before, we often find ourselves trapped in highly curated information bubbles. Occasionally, we experience moments of realisation—when a debate explodes across media platforms, and we suddenly notice that we were entirely outside of it. These moments highlight the illusion of control over information — even disinformation or lies are technically speaking information. While certain narratives can dominate for a time, they are never truly all-encompassing.?

The phrase “controlling the narrative” suggests a level of influence that, in reality, is both unsustainable and counterproductive. Social media, the most immediate space for public discourse today, may make it seem like certain actors have successfully imposed a particular viewpoint. But information flows cannot be permanently directed without resistance. Controlling the narrative, if taken to its extreme, does not just mean structuring a compelling argument—it often involves dismissing, suppressing, or discrediting alternative perspectives. And that is where the danger lies.

The Shift from Persuasion to Manipulation

Good strategic communication is about engagement, not control. You should have a say in shaping a narrative, but you should never seek to eliminate competing viewpoints. If the active verb becomes “controlling” rather than “engaging,” we lose sight of the fundamental principles of a democratic and open society. Development cooperation, which claims to champion participation, empowerment, and inclusivity, cannot afford to adopt a model of communications that is inherently exclusionary.

When narrative control is prioritized over genuine dialogue, the result is a closed-loop system—an echo chamber that reinforces itself while actively filtering out inconvenient truths or dissenting opinions. Worse, this approach often leads to a kind of superficial engagement where performative interaction (e.g., likes, shares, emojis and rather meaningless comments) replaces real discussion. It also fosters an environment where covered ad hominem arguments—attacking or belittling the messenger rather than engaging with the message—become a standard tactic.?

The Erosion of Trust and the Long-Term Consequences

Perhaps the most significant risk of a control-based approach to communications is its long-term impact on trust. People recognize when they are being manipulated. They will sense when certain narratives are being artificially maintained while alternative perspectives are systematically sidelined. And when they lose trust in an institution’s communication, they do not just disengage—they actively look for counter-narratives, often gravitating toward sources that present themselves as more authentic, even if they are less reliable.

In development cooperation, this should concern us deeply. If communications in this sector become too focused on the controlling narratives around intervention impact rather than fostering open dialogue, we risk alienating the very people we aim to engage. Effective communication should not be about creating the illusion of consensus but about ensuring that diverse perspectives are heard, acknowledged, and debated. And it should also include viewpoints of those who have very substantial criticism.

Toward a More Open Approach

So, what is the alternative? Instead of controlling the narrative, institutions should focus on participating in the narrative. This means:

? Active listening: Paying attention to what different audiences are saying, not just broadcasting predetermined messages and storytelling (an old-fashioned form of shaping the narrative).

? Engaging with opposing views: Addressing criticism constructively rather than dismissing it outright.

? Encouraging discussion: Creating spaces where multiple perspectives can coexist without fear of being shut down.

? Prioritizing transparency: Acknowledging complexities and uncertainties rather than presenting overly simplistic or overly polished success stories.

A healthy democracy—and a healthy public discourse—depends on the ability to engage meaningfully with competing viewpoints. Development cooperation should lead by example, demonstrating that the way we communicate reflects the values we claim to uphold. That means resisting the urge to control the narrative and instead committing to open, thoughtful, and responsive communication.

After all, the real power of communication is not in controlling what people hear—it is in how we respond when they challenge us.

About

Photo credit: People wait at a World Food Programme distribution center to receive grain in Ethiopia in May 2017. Photo by:?Ayene / UNICEF Ethiopia?/?CC BY-NC-ND

+++

An earlier version of this article was published on Strategic. I'm a Strategic Columnist #WeLeadComms honoree.?