In a world where politicians like Nigel Farage refuse to condemn Trump’s assertion that paracetamol causes autism, targeting think tanks as an evil force in British Politics seems like misdirected anger.
Think tanks are research institutions that aim to influence policymaking by providing expertise on specific areas to decision-makers. Their poor reputation stems from their association with a technocratic approach to democracy, in which those who should be representing the people are listening to the interests of an elite group behind closed doors. Recent news about the Labour MP Torsten Bell having worked at the think tank ‘Resolution Foundation’ for nine years sparked some concerns about private interests infiltrating public politics.
However, a closer examination reveals that think tanks might actually be a saving grace in an ocean of populism. The rise of anti-intellectualism emboldens international leaders to sideline specialists as “arrogant academics” while confidently asserting unsubstantiated opinions. As entertaining as the President of the United States advising drinking bleach might seem, we should not lose sight of the weight politicians’ views carry and the impact they can have on people’s lives.
MPs are voting on legislation regarding an immense array of topics, from slip road safety to arms trade, which directly affect their constituencies and the UK as a whole. It would be unrealistic and unfair to expect MPs to be experts in every topic addressed in bills, generating a natural demand for knowledge on the legislators’ side. By virtue of having leading experts, think tanks can provide key insights to policymakers that reduce the risk of passing harmful policies. A bill can have the right intentions, but backfire at the micro-level when legislators are unfamiliar with the technicalities of a field. For instance, Spain’s 2022 sexual consent law, “Only yes means yes,” was designed to toughen prison sentences for sexual assault. Nevertheless, despite its noble aim to protect women, a legal loophole called “retroactive application of the law” resulted in over 1400 sexual offenders getting an early release or a sentence reduction. This scandal led many to criticise Irene Montero, the minister in charge of the bill, for not listening to legal advisers’ warnings of the nuances that could undermine the effectiveness of her bill. Consequently, victims of sexual assault are now less safe with their offenders roaming free due to their legislators’ legal knowledge gap, once again reinforcing the need for think tanks to establish the foundations for legislators ahead of passing bills.
It is essential for our expectations of politicians to match those of any other job sector: when you walk into a doctor’s appointment, attend a university lecture, or take a taxi, you want the person in charge to be qualified. MPs collaborating with think tanks to make informed decisions should ease our minds rather than cause outrage. Although it is key to recognise that think tanks have their own interests, their ability to influence does not go further than disseminating knowledge. Whether think tanks’ proposals are taken up remains at the discretion of policymakers; thus, the risks of undue influence by think tanks remain minimal compared to the repercussions of politicians overestimating their understanding when voting on life-altering issues.
The real danger lies not in politicians listening to experts, but in ignoring them.
“House of Common, London” by Ben124. is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Related
Ignorance isn’t bliss when it comes to legislation: Think tanks in British politics
In a world where politicians like Nigel Farage refuse to condemn Trump’s assertion that paracetamol causes autism, targeting think tanks as an evil force in British Politics seems like misdirected anger.
Think tanks are research institutions that aim to influence policymaking by providing expertise on specific areas to decision-makers. Their poor reputation stems from their association with a technocratic approach to democracy, in which those who should be representing the people are listening to the interests of an elite group behind closed doors. Recent news about the Labour MP Torsten Bell having worked at the think tank ‘Resolution Foundation’ for nine years sparked some concerns about private interests infiltrating public politics.
However, a closer examination reveals that think tanks might actually be a saving grace in an ocean of populism. The rise of anti-intellectualism emboldens international leaders to sideline specialists as “arrogant academics” while confidently asserting unsubstantiated opinions. As entertaining as the President of the United States advising drinking bleach might seem, we should not lose sight of the weight politicians’ views carry and the impact they can have on people’s lives.
MPs are voting on legislation regarding an immense array of topics, from slip road safety to arms trade, which directly affect their constituencies and the UK as a whole. It would be unrealistic and unfair to expect MPs to be experts in every topic addressed in bills, generating a natural demand for knowledge on the legislators’ side. By virtue of having leading experts, think tanks can provide key insights to policymakers that reduce the risk of passing harmful policies. A bill can have the right intentions, but backfire at the micro-level when legislators are unfamiliar with the technicalities of a field. For instance, Spain’s 2022 sexual consent law, “Only yes means yes,” was designed to toughen prison sentences for sexual assault. Nevertheless, despite its noble aim to protect women, a legal loophole called “retroactive application of the law” resulted in over 1400 sexual offenders getting an early release or a sentence reduction. This scandal led many to criticise Irene Montero, the minister in charge of the bill, for not listening to legal advisers’ warnings of the nuances that could undermine the effectiveness of her bill. Consequently, victims of sexual assault are now less safe with their offenders roaming free due to their legislators’ legal knowledge gap, once again reinforcing the need for think tanks to establish the foundations for legislators ahead of passing bills.
It is essential for our expectations of politicians to match those of any other job sector: when you walk into a doctor’s appointment, attend a university lecture, or take a taxi, you want the person in charge to be qualified. MPs collaborating with think tanks to make informed decisions should ease our minds rather than cause outrage. Although it is key to recognise that think tanks have their own interests, their ability to influence does not go further than disseminating knowledge. Whether think tanks’ proposals are taken up remains at the discretion of policymakers; thus, the risks of undue influence by think tanks remain minimal compared to the repercussions of politicians overestimating their understanding when voting on life-altering issues.
The real danger lies not in politicians listening to experts, but in ignoring them.
“House of Common, London” by Ben124. is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related