Should we nationalise foreign policy?
Forty years ago, it was rare to find a 'think tank' not associated with a political party. Members of such party outfits would of course follow their parties into government, and provide information whilst in opposition. They were officially A Good Thing, especially since they employed the likes of Reggie Maudling.
In recent decades, private networks of influence and employment with a real say in policy have sprung up. The argument for them is that they provide a fount for non-party ideas, and often function as drivers of evidence based policy. They are bastions of the plural model of politics, which is much lauded by those to whom they give jobs and by foreign affairs magazines written by people whom they employ.
However, there are to my mind real downsides to the think tank culture, especially in foreign policy. They are apt to become covers for the injection of big money in pursuit of the narrow aims of lobby groups. They provide a whirligig of employment for the political classes who think of themselves as too important to get a proper job, or without one when they are out of power. They tend to infiltrate newly elected or inexperienced administrations, who cannot rely on a denuded foreign or domestic civil service; and they tend to exist to make their own idea of government bigger.
I am also constantly shocked by the lack of rationality, or even humanity, of some think tanks, foundations, lobby groups or policy networks, which tend in my experience to be nepotistic and to hold ordinary voters out as some exotic species. Some of them are genuine cabals of foreign and international interests.
So--why have them? I'd like to make two modest proposals.
Firstly, if you want a think tank outside of the House of Lords or the universities, and there is a case for them, ban anyone who works for them under licence from standing for public office or seeking public employment for seven years.
Also, ban any former public employee from taking paid work from them for five years. Set up citizen's juries and legislative committees with permanent staff operating on civil service rules to assemble briefing materials, and make all policy proposals public.
It would be very hard to define what a think tank was, of course. An alternative approach would be to apply enhanced freedom of information rules to them all, and force them all to declare the ultimate source of their funding, the party affiliations of their advisers and those they advise, and their tax returns.
Secondly, just nationalise the lot and set them up as independent non-profit corporations that have to have independent people elected to their boards.
Any takers?
Forty years ago, it was rare to find a 'think tank' not associated with a political party. Members of such party outfits would of course follow their parties into government, and provide information whilst in opposition. They were officially A Good Thing, especially since they employed the likes of Reggie Maudling.
In recent decades, private networks of influence and employment with a real say in policy have sprung up. The argument for them is that they provide a fount for non-party ideas, and often function as drivers of evidence based policy. They are bastions of the plural model of politics, which is much lauded by those to whom they give jobs and by foreign affairs magazines written by people whom they employ.
However, there are to my mind real downsides to the think tank culture, especially in foreign policy. They are apt to become covers for the injection of big money in pursuit of the narrow aims of lobby groups. They provide a whirligig of employment for the political classes who think of themselves as too important to get a proper job, or without one when they are out of power. They tend to infiltrate newly elected or inexperienced administrations, who cannot rely on a denuded foreign or domestic civil service; and they tend to exist to make their own idea of government bigger.
I am also constantly shocked by the lack of rationality, or even humanity, of some think tanks, foundations, lobby groups or policy networks, which tend in my experience to be nepotistic and to hold ordinary voters out as some exotic species. Some of them are genuine cabals of foreign and international interests.
So--why have them? I'd like to make two modest proposals.
Firstly, if you want a think tank outside of the House of Lords or the universities, and there is a case for them, ban anyone who works for them under licence from standing for public office or seeking public employment for seven years.
Also, ban any former public employee from taking paid work from them for five years. Set up citizen's juries and legislative committees with permanent staff operating on civil service rules to assemble briefing materials, and make all policy proposals public.
It would be very hard to define what a think tank was, of course. An alternative approach would be to apply enhanced freedom of information rules to them all, and force them all to declare the ultimate source of their funding, the party affiliations of their advisers and those they advise, and their tax returns.
Secondly, just nationalise the lot and set them up as independent non-profit corporations that have to have independent people elected to their boards.
Any takers?
Comments