Opinion & Commentary
Independent research works best: A think tank within a political party walks a tightrope
There has been a media flurry since federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson swiftly rejected a new report on education policy from the Menzies Research Centre, a Liberal Party think-tank. An editorial chastised him, saying there is ‘no excuse for ignoring ideas’.
Dr Nelson is one of Parliament’s more intellectually open and reflective members. While working in the Howard government in the late 1990s I thought Dr Nelson the backbencher stood out for his carefully thought through speeches, and as a Minister he still does. The Australian published one such speech only last week. And in his new portfolio, he has been busy listening to people with a range of views.
So how is he now being ticked off for ‘ignoring ideas’? The problem lies less with Dr Nelson than with the inherent difficulty in combining a think-tank, the Menzies Research Centre, and a political party, two institutions with very different functions in the political process.
Over the last thirty years, major new issues were usually put on the political agenda not by political parties, but by issue movements. Environmentalism, feminism, multiculturalism and gay rights, for example, all started outside the major political parties, and the free market reform movement was initially largely non-parliamentary, promoted by think-tanks, journalists and academics. The Coalition and Labor adopted parts of all these agendas, but they were not the prime movers.
This does not mean that political parties are intellectually backward. Rather, it reflects the particular roles they perform and incentives they face within the political system.
The major political parties’ goal is to win and hold government. This is no easy task. Surveys show that over half the electorate identify weakly or not at all with a political party. Each party, then, must attract many marginal voters. Because of this electoral vulnerability, and high levels of media and opposition scrutiny, policy must be carefully assessed for its political prospects. Too much criticism that sticks, and seats start to be lost in elections and by-elections. With this incentive structure, policy caution is the norm, and politicians develop the art of saying nothing while keeping talking.
For issue movements or think-tanks their task is not to take power, but to attract attention to their issues or opinions. If they have less than 50% support this doesn’t matter, as they are accountable not to the Australian electorate but to their supporters, a much smaller and more committed group. While they too face criticism from the media and each other, this rarely worries them, since controversy gives their ideas vital prominence. The incentive structure of issue movements and think-tanks is, then, to go beyond conventional wisdom.
Political parties, issue movements and think-tanks play complementary roles in Australian politics. Issue movements and think-tanks make policy suggestions, debate sorts out their advantages and disadvantages, and in the final stage political parties implement policy the electorate will accept. This system combines innovation and democratic constraint.
A think-tank within a political party constantly walks a tight-rope. It must not embarrass the party, but if it is to produce something better than propaganda with footnotes it must go beyond current policy. I’m not at all sure that both can be done. The Menzies Research Centre has shown its independence, but at the price of its report being dumped by the politically accountable Minister before debate could begin. Politicians could use a politically loyal research centre to keep them informed of current thinking, but the cutting edge work is best left to independent think-tanks.
About the Author:
Andrew Norton is a Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
