Phenomenon of intelligence polarisation

Intelligence polarisation occurs when different power centres develop in an intelligence apparatus. The process of emergence of these centres is a function of many factors: political, administrative and structural. Politics can play a key role in polarising the intelligence in a country. The intelligence construction is also impacted by political thinking and strategy. The art of intelligence rests on funneling the political thought through intelligence channels so that it translates into a political narrative causing public traction. The intelligence operators sense the sources of public-opinion-making and hence act in a manner so as to amplify the political discourse. The more an intelligence apparatus is used in settling political matters, the more uniformity of opinion it causes in an organisation or a society provided it exercises undisputed control over information dissemination. Lack of monopoly of information management produces excessive political use of intelligence which often results into shaping or reshaping political thinking in an intelligence agency. In such a scenario, intelligence is used for individual gains. The room for accepting conflicting viewpoints or information avenues shrinks considerably and paves way for intelligence inflexibility. An intelligence obstinacy further boosts the environment of intelligence polarisation which in turn increases chances for political intolerance. Hence an intelligence apparatus should avoid multi-polarity to cause less polarisation and intolerance in an organisation or a society.

The administrative inertia also pushes an intelligence agency into polarisation. The elements of intelligence, their operational nuts and bolts, are gravitated by the stagnant organisational pull. Each agency has its own intelligence gravity. The apparatus keeps on thriving within the given gravitational sphere to which it conforms, partially or completely, in an external threat environment. With time, different intelligence centres appear due to change in external factors. These centres have their own set of field operators who firmly believe in a peculiar intelligence interpretation of ground realities. The intelligence elements of one intelligence centre, within an organisation or agency, stick to their intelligence expostulation and work surreptitiously for accomplishing their objectives. As a result, if one intelligence centre gains upper hand it tries to suppress the other. A kind of rivalry is also developed among these intelligence centres which in majority of the cases work towards ossification of administrative inertia. These intelligence hubs operate in their own intelligence realities and tend to remain in it unless dismantled completely by the organisational command. Such a situation leads towards loss of syncretic intelligence approach which ultimately pushes an intelligence apparatus to a conflict mindset on basis of internal polarisation.

The monopoly of control over information dissemination is no more an exclusive domain of any intelligence agency, as internet and social media have made it personalised in a big way. Today, an individual, living in a remote area, can easily express his or her opinion by uploading a video which can be viewed by hundreds and thousands of people. Hence, conflicting viewpoints on a given matter can easily nullify any narrative espoused and nurtured through an intelligence agency. These individual assertions either support an interpretation of one intelligence centre or reject a description of the other. The elements of one intelligence centre tend to seek assistance from personalised interpretation of external environment by social media users. Therefore, each intelligence centre tries to simplify these descriptions and dogpile them on its side.

Lastly, the structural component in an intelligence apparatus needs to work in a flexible manner. It must move towards specialisation of intelligence rather than relying on generalised expostulations to translate the external threat environment. The specialisation of intelligence gives clarity to different intelligence centres within an organisation and makes them work towards a common objective. It shuns intelligence polarisation and supports intelligence unity.

In nut shell, a developed country can sustain intelligence polarisation for a longer period of time as compared to a developing country which fails to live with it in the longer run.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 28^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.