Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Can government learn from history?

By Keith Suter - posted Monday, 16 August 2021


It is not a blaming exercise, designed to find scapegoats. It is not targeted at particular individuals. It is a way of assessing just how well a government actually operates – rather than just relying on the claims made by the government spin doctors.

The emphasis is on improving future performance. Therefore, the intention is not simply to produce a report that will gather dust on the shelves. There has to be follow through. It is an opportunity for learning.

A parliamentary enquiry could not be trusted to do this work. That is too much like asking politicians to mark their own homework. I used to give evidence to such parliamentary enquiries (I now recognize them as a waste of time) and they soon descend into party political skirmishes or they just belittle the witnesses.

Advertisement

There has to be an external body to do the assessment. The body would also monitor the fate of its findings and recommendations.

It may well be that the recommendations cannot be made automatically binding on a government – because of the sovereignty of parliament doctrine – but it stays around as a learning tool. If a government decided not to implement the recommendations, then it would need to explain its reasoning.

I realize that I am sounding hopelessly optimistic about politicians and bureaucrats behaving in a rational manner, that they actually do want to learn from their actions. This proposal is introducing rationality into a process marked – if not marred – by passion, personal ambition, and short-term thinking.

However, the proposal is triggered by a growing sense of disillusionment with modern democratic government. I am troubled by the number of people who have contempt for the modern parliamentary/ congressional system and think that we should have some form of benevolent dictatorship.

China, for example, is often seen as having a more efficient form of government. Its infrastructure and telecommunications are seen as being better than what the tired old western democracies can produce.

If government knew beforehand it would be subject to the AAR, it would encourage more reflection, and perhaps a greater willingness to listen to alternative voices – just to make sure that it is not making an error of judgment.

Advertisement

A Before Action Review (BAR) would encourage a rational dispassionate consideration of such matters as: what are the intended results, what are the potential challenges, what have previous AARs shown in similar situations, and why should we think that we could be any more successful this time?

A 2001 BAR in Afghanistan would have made a classic case study. After all, the failures of the British in the 19th century (twice) and the Soviet Union in the 1980s had shown how risky foreign military interventions could be in Afghanistan. It would have encouraged the US and its allies to think more creatively about apprehending Osama bin Laden.

For example, my proposal at the time was a reward of a US$500million dollars and the promise of residency anywhere overseas for anyone – such as the Russian or Tajik mafia – who could capture bin Laden and bring him before an international criminal court. This would have been a lot cheaper than the two decades of fruitless fighting that we have endured.

We need government to be more creative and less reactive. BARs and AARs would assist government to become a learning organization.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Keith Suter is a futurist, thought leader and media personality in the areas of social policy and foreign affairs. He is a prolific and well-respected writer and social commentator appearing on radio and television most weeks.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Keith Suter

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Keith Suter
Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy