Two big elements are missing in a lot of political discourse. There is often a poor understanding of science and the process by which understanding of the world around us gained by observation can help to inform public policy. At the same time, there is also a lack of comprehension of how history has influenced the world around us. As Mark Henderson notes in his book, the Geek Manifesto, this is most likely not attributable to either an anti science or anti history bias amongst our elected representatives, it is just that in the hurly burly of daily politics, they lose sight of the importance of these two analytical tools. There are of course some who are positively against one or both of these disciplines. But the majority are not and with appropriate reminders it is hopeful that they can be persuaded of the importance of having both a historical perspective and a full understanding of the evidential basis for their decisions.
The above mentioned Mark Henderson makes an extremely eloquent case for using evidence based science as a tool in policy making. Perhaps more importantly, he shows, very tellingly, the perils of ignoring science or being anti scientific. This should of course, be self evident. A similar parallel is equal opportunities in the work place. No employer worth calling an employer can afford to discriminate in favour of one group of the population on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality or any of the other ways in which you can discriminate against people. Thus, equal opportunities needs to be implicit in ones employment policy. Sadly, human nature being what it is we also need to have explicit guidelines to ensure that people only focus on the important aspects of a person's ability to do the job for which you are selecting them.
It is the same with science. No one in their right mind would ignore the evidence for or against adopting a given policy however, once again, human nature can make people adopt illogical positions and hold ideas in contradiction of the evidence presented to them. Thus, we need to have explicit reminders that we need to consider the scientific evidence when making policy decisions.
Historical analysis needs to be at the centre of policy making as well. Nothing happens in isolation to what has gone before and a proper understanding of this is crucial to formulating any policy ideas. The most destructive government decisions can derive from a denial of history, in particularly the ahistorical doctrines of the extreme right and left such as Stalinist or Fascism. Other psychotic despots have also sought to deny history. Franco, in Spain believed that the entire nineteenth century had been an error for Spain and he sought to wind the clock back to the period before the 1812 liberal constitution. Pol Pot sought to recreate the Khmer empire based on year zero.
There are also more mundane examples of failed policies based on an incomplete historical understanding or wilful ignoring of the history behind a situation. Many decision makers in the west have an incomplete understanding of the development of the two main strands of Islam – Shia and Sunni. This then makes them see any conflict in very black and white terms. Thus, in Iraq Saddam Hussain was of Sunni origin and ruthlessly oppressed the Shia minority. Many people then portrayed the Shia as good and the Sunni as bad. However, in neighbouring Iran, the situation is the opposite way round and it is a Shia majority who oppress the Sunni minority. This is also complicated by the fact that Iran is not primarily an ethnically Arab country. Back in Iraq, Hussain was not primarily motivated by religious beliefs but rather in the political ideology of Baathism which seeks to generate a revolutionary Arab renaissance. This is a necessarily grossly simplified description of some of the historically based issues in the so called Middle East. Without an understanding any interventions by outside powers are going to run in to huge problems.
A lack of historical perspective can also work badly at the smallest level. If you visit Barcelona you will find lots of people taking part in a very slow and simple dance in La Plaça de Catalunya. I have deliberately used the Catalan rather than Castillian spelling. All through the Franco era, the Sardana which is a traditional Catalan dance was banned in the interests of Francos rigid centralism and suppression of regional nationalism. In the post Franco era, the government of Spain has embraced regionalism and the people of Barcelona have been busy renaming places such as the Plaza de Cataluña to the Plaça de Catalunya as well as dancing the Sardana in that square. Many tourists have sought to join in these dances and been brusquely brushed off to the distress of the friendly tourist. Were those tourists able to understand that the dance is more of a political statement rather than simply a cultural festival they might understand why they were not welcome to take part.
Of course, a case can be made for all sorts of academic disciplines to have their place in formulating policy. Geographers would point to the need to understand the concept of sense of place or hazards analysis when formulating housing policy. Anthropologists would insist that you need to fully understand all aspects of a culture before devising an aid plan for a poorer country.
However, if politicians take into account the historical perspective and then apply rigorous evidence based thoughts to how to move forward, it is likely that policy will be much more effective and legislation will stand a much better chance of achieving what it sets out to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment