Think Tanks and Political Parties

By Ronald Meinardus

MANILA - As the complexity of the issues facing society continues to grow, politicians increasingly face the problem of how to handle what is often termed "information overkill." As a solution, they often seek the assistance of intellectual assistants _ academics, consultants and advisers. Often, these aides belong to think tanks _ companies or institutes that research and write reports that address the challenges of our times. The proliferation of these think factories, as they are also aptly called, has provoked a debate regarding the role of these institutes in the political system.

While everybody seems to agree that these advisers are necessary as even the brightest politicians are unable to grasp the complexities of many issues they deal with, critics argue that think tanks are rarely objective and mostly concerned with promoting their own agenda. "They don’t think; they justify," Jonathan Rowe, a lawyer and libertarian writer from the United States, said.

Think tanks originated in the U.S. in 1921 when bankers, diplomats and journalists who were concerned about the government’s foreign policy set up the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council maintains an influential role in U.S. foreign policy debates.

According to one source, there are 3,000 think tanks operating all over the world today. About half of these are based in the United States and 20 percent are in Europe. Critics say that there are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones in the U.S. and the conservative institutes are better funded. Arguably, the conservative or "neo-conservative" institutes have major influence in Washington, D.C. as evidenced by their support for the war in Iraq. It doesn’t end there: Anyone interested in U.S. policies on the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits or any other international hotspot should carefully study the materials and statements coming from conservative think factories in Washington, D.C.

While various think tanks are driven by different ideological motives, all have one common objective: to actively influence policy making by shaping public opinion and the intellectual climate in which politicians operate. In this regard, think tanks are similar to lobbyists. But unlike lobby groups, which usually prefer to operate in the background, think tanks are keen on publicity and, therefore, media advocacy and publications are central elements of their strategy.

As think tanks aim at pushing a specific political agenda, their relationship with politicians and political parties becomes crucial. Actually, politicians and parties are often their main target group _ and the main source of their business. In some democracies, political parties have set up their own think tanks. Germany, where every major political party is entitled to public funding for a "party foundation," is a case in point. Political think tanks with close relationships to political parties and different forms of government support are also found in other European countries and in the United States.

Typically, these partisan institutes engage in three main functions. First, they give policy advice to the leadership of the political parties they are allied with. Second, they train and educate party members and candidates for public office. Finally, they provide a network of politically likeminded individuals and experts and are, thus, also perceived as recruitment grounds for prospective political leaders.

Unlike Europe and North America, political think tanks and party institutes are not widespread in Asia. "The whole notion of independent political think tanks is problematic," James Gomez, a civil society leader from Singapore, said. According to him, the state has always played a dominant role in intellectual institutions in many countries in Asia and continues to do so today. While only a few independent political think tanks operate in this part of the world, the number of political institutes with a direct link to a political party is even smaller. "Politicians in the Philippines usually get their advice from outside. They don’t need the party," said Ramon Casiple, head of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform, one of the few independent political think tanks in Manila. "We have weak political parties," he said, "and the concept of think tanks is not institutionalized."

Many think tanks in the Philippines and other Asian countries are sponsored by foreign donors. In many cases, these donors are political think tanks themselves. Therefore, in a way, you have a situation in which a wealthy think tank from the west gives money to a less privileged partner institute in Asia. The financial support is hardly ever unconditional. Usually, the foreign donor assists the local partner in promoting specific objectives, such as political reforms, economic deregulations or human rights.

Traditionally, foreign donors have given the bulk of their money to civil society groups, that is, organizations, movements and networks that operate independently from the government and the state. Thus far, political parties and their allied organizations have not been among the main beneficiaries.

"Due to the unique political roles of political parties, international resources should be re-allocated in a more equitable manner," Krishna Kumar wrote in a paper published by the Netherlands Institute of International Relations on international political party assistance. There are indications that this is already happening, as more western donors have discovered the strategic role that modern platform-based political parties play in the consolidation of democratic governance.

Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and will leave Manila late September for a new posting in the Middle East. He writes a blog at www.myliberaltimes.com