However, the advertisement drew my attention towards another equally serious matter of mushrooming of think tanks in the country, especially Islamabad. While we complain about mushrooming of television channels that add to our depression rather than increase our knowledge, no one has looked into the think tank industry that seems to have added no real value to policymaking or our understanding of Pakistan or the world at large. In fact, most think tanks in Islamabad cannot be accused of what their title claims to do — thinking. I would also like to add that having a view and expressing it in seminars and conferences is not the same as serious thinking or research and analysis that a think tank is supposed to accomplish.
The business started to grow gradually in the end of the 1990s when the Islamabad Policy Research Institute was set up to enhance quality of research in the public sector. While the Institute of Regional Studies contributed at a snail’s pace with its database on regional issues, the Institute of Strategic Studies was known for bureaucratic control and, hence, redundant analysis. This was the period when there were only two or three key private think tanks in town known for their particular ideological perspective.
The real expansion of think tanks as an industry took place during the mid- and late-2000s. A lot of people seemed to have joined the bandwagon since then — from retired diplomats and generals and intelligence agency plants, to political party members and even influential journalists. But something common amongst most think tanks in town is the poor quality of research which is supposedly their key product. In fact, even those think tanks that were known for better quality research seem to have moved away and focused mainly on networking, advocacy and attracting funds. The amount of money that a particular organisation has depends on the head and whom can he or she can talk into investing in the venture.
The international community was also keen on investing in structures with the help of which it could communicate and interact with Pakistan’s state and society. Thus, it is not surprising to find foreign governments and other donors providing resources for new think tanks or financing Track-II junkets, some of which are well financed and provide first class hospitality to the participants. Unfortunately, such opportunities seem to have been squandered and turned into an exercise of financial gratification of a handful of people. The stories of embezzled research funds or conflict of interest are heart wrenching. The level of accountability in this sector is abysmal. More important, there is no sign of improvement in research standards or products that would make people think.
The poor quality is directly linked with the larger issue of authoritarian control of certain critical sectors of society, especially those that produce information or add to it in any shape or form. When you have intelligence agency plants running think tanks without any proper qualification, their natural focus becomes the cosmetics rather than the main task they claim to do. I am also reminded of one particular think tank where women employees are forced to wear Western clothes and shake hands with men because the task is to groom and produce a product that can interact with the Western world and capture attention rather than engage in a serious conversation.
But foreign governments are not the only contributors as the Pakistani state and the ‘deep state’ have great interest in controlling the thinking process. The process of setting up new think tanks in Islamabad and even other cities like Lahore after the mid-2000s makes sense because the business was considered a vital tool to engage with both, the inside and the outside world. The ‘deep state’ ambitiously wants to create people with good networking skills who can interact with the international community, influence the thinking process at home and also penetrate international think tanks where possible. They have been partially successful in these three above-cited objectives. In fact, they have even managed to find partners in think tanks in Western countries, in particular, to push the ‘deep state’s’ agenda. Today, the think tank business will not be conducted without providing some help to the ‘deep state’. Nevertheless, the more critical problem is the way such attitude goes counter to efforts to build the capacity of the nation to think, which is already crushed under the weight of an environment where thinking is sin and people will be shot dead for their faith or providing access to justice to people.
So, another think tank that ensures Sharia and ‘deep state’ compliance will just be adding to what exists already. It will not enhance the capacity of policymakers and ordinary people to think but close their minds so they can’t think at all.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 29th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (17)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Think-tanks are, ostensibly, non-profit, tax-exempt, non-political organisations which serve as centres for research and analysis on important strategic and political issues.
Most think-tanks have a clear political leaning. They are covertly funded by sponsors of industry, major political parties, or governments themselves. They are headquartered at or near the seats of government to be able to influence policymakers in the legislatures.
Mr Noorani says they ‘affect policymakers’ by ‘generating original ideas and options for policy’. I beg to differ a la Jonathen Rowe who says that think-tanks “don’t think, they justify”.
Their ‘scholarships’ are meant to generate ideas to justify the sponsors’ line of thinking. Their research products are ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of their founders and financiers. They are sans students, sans peer review and academia pressure to correct their misprojections and miscalculations.
Unlike a university which first does its research and then draws inferences, think-tanks act in the reverse.
Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach’s apt remarks encompass summum bonum of a think-tank. He says: “Washington is a thoughtful town. A friend of mine worked at a think-tank temporarily and the director told him, when he entered, ‘we are all white men between the ages of 50 and 55, and we have no places else to go’.
Columnist John Chuckman calls them “phony institutes where ideologue propagandists pose as academics”, into which “money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertisings, suffocation of genuine debate”.
Tom Brazaitis, in Cleveland Plain Dealer, points out: “So much money now flows in that the top 20 conservative think-tanks now spend more money than all of the ‘soft money’ contributions to the Republican Party”.
Titles (like ‘senior fellow’ or ‘adjunct scholar’) imply that resident experts of a think-tank possess academic qualification in the area of claimed expertise. But, it is not always so. Experts claim to be clairvoyant enough to look into the future.
But most of them do not base their projections or bother to use research methods to form their opinions. Urban dictionary rightly defines them as stink tanks ().
Think-tanks have an inherent tendency to make wild projections. I request Mr Noorani to look at the prestigious RANDs subjective bloomers in the monograph “Muslim World after 9/11: Project Air Force”.
It alleges that Al Qaeda recruits may have connection with Pakistan’s Tableeghi Jamaat and Lebanese Hezbollah (not Turkish Hizbullah). Figure 0.1 in the monograph titled ‘Muslim tendencies on a Spectrum of Democracy to Non-Democracy’ classifies ‘Jamaat al Ulema-i-Pakistan’ and ‘Jamaat-i-Islami (Pakistan)’ as ‘Radical Fundamentalist” (p.10).
It states ‘Hezbollah and …Al Qaeda also capitalise on the black market for African gold and diamonds. Muslim extremists routinely resort to smuggling, kidnapping and extortion to raise funds and achieve political ends.
In South America, Hezbollah operatives engage in a wide range of criminal activities, including shakedowns of local Arab communities and sophisticated import export scams’ (p.46, ibid.). ‘Al Qaeda raised as much as 35 per cent of its operating funds from the drug trade.
Hezbollah benefits from the drug business in Lebanon (p.468, ibid.). The observations about Al Qaeda appear to be a rehash of unsubstantiated potpourri in a Jane’s report.
If think-tanks are so biased, why they have mushroomed into thousands, 1,200 alone in the US (to quote Noorani)? Chomski answers this question in ‘Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda’ (Karachi, Vanguard, 2004, p.16).
To Chomsky, the American masses are like a ‘bewildered herd’, who have stopped thinking.
He asserts that, in a ‘properly functioning democracy’, there are a ‘small percentage of the people’, a ‘specialised class of citizens’ who … analyse, execute, make decisions and run things in ‘the political, economic and ideological systems’.
He quotes Wilson administration’s Creel Commission who converted, through propaganda, the ‘pacifist’ American nation into a “hysterical, war-mongering population which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and save the world”.
Think-tank is a title given to all or anybody who believes that they have more brains then everyone else. Some of the people who are heading or even part of these think-tanks are eccentric and have no idea is what the people's pulse are and no clue is to what the foreign powers are projecting. I have been an avid observer of so called Pakistani online think-tanks for 20 years and have yet to come across any mature and balance one. Exception being Pakdef, which even though doesn't claim to be think-tank but does provide a very clear picture is to Pakistan Geo-strategic issues are. They are the most quoted source in any respectable online publications as far as Pakistan is concerned.
Needless to say there are a lot of sane and balanced people around who happen to see Pakistan's issues from a clear prism rather then some intellectually bankrupt one's supported by the Govt. of Pakistan with the help of some foreign funding.
I disagree with the author. We need more think-tanks in Pakistan like BrassTacks with their signature Lal Topi commentary. If the lal topi fellow is given prime time slots on Indian news channels, everyone will get hooked to those laughter shows and there will be so much peace between the two countries. I suggest even Talibani factions should be exposed to these think-tanks of Pakistan; they will stop suicide bombing and instead would die from uncontrollable laughter.
Ms. Siddiqa's column starts with some personal attacks, then proceeds to make some incisive critiques of Islamabad's think tank scene, and concludes with some conspiracy theories.
I completely agree with her that Islamabad's think tanks are sources of shallow analysis. But the central flaw in her analysis is that she assumes that what is taking place in Pakistan (i.e. the growth of think tanks that are backed by the government or toe the government's line) is not happening elsewhere in the world. It is in fact the norm.
India's major think tanks receive government funding. Why is it a problem when the Jinnah Institute receives startup funds from the GoP?
The massive RAND Corporation receives most of its funding from the U.S. Defense Department.
The lead analysts of Pakistan at the Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation (Bruce Riedel and Lisa Curtis) are former CIA analysts. Much of Riedel's work is sourced from information he clearly gets from the administration or the CIA.
The Center for American Progress is effectively a front for the Obama Administration/U.S. Democratic Party.
Many other US think tanks, including the USIP, receive funding from Congress, USAID, and the State Department. Their projects center around the US government's foreign policy objectives and funding priorities. In other words, their work is shaped by the priorities of the rent giver, which, more often than not, is the US government.
The US think tank scene is a revolving door. When a party is voted out of power, their foreign policy gurus join think tanks, work as lobbyists or contractors, and then rejoin government when they come back to power. How independent do you think these people are? The money that goes into these organizations is massive. The money going into Pakistani think tanks is marginal in comparison. Yet Ms. Siddiqa is complaining about nicely dressed women who shake the hands of men.
Again, I agree with Ms. Siddiqa that the quality of the work at Islamabad think tanks is substandard. But let's not kid ourselves. There is a lot of substandard work everywhere. More importantly, think tanks everywhere toe the government line.
Think tanks are up for sale. Many think tanks in the US, such as the CSIS and Brookings Institution, receive funding from the Taiwanese and Qatari governments. Others get funding from Israeli lobbyists, like the billionaire Haim Saban.
My advice to Ms. Siddiqa is to raise the standard of her own analysis and look at things from a comparative perspective. The big picture issue is what is happening to the policy/scholarly community everywhere. Focusing on Pakistan is missing the forest for the trees.
Can the learned Ayesha do us all a great favour? Can she find a better picture of herself which does not make her look so arrogant? Same goes for another writer from the USA. Is he Ejaz Haider?
Think tanks business is grooming in FATA where majority of the foreign funded NGO project getting funds inviting so called FATA journalist, reformist and elders and ex service men who unfortunately had never visit FATA, among these are CRSS, FATA political parties, FRC and many other who is negatively projecting FATA, and they says to world that FATA is no go land and they can brought change here but it is all for money making
Think Tanks in Islamabad have become a fad.The environment we live in does not favour positive thinking leave aside thinking about statecraft. Our think tanks are no exception.
Plato and Kautilya have given the recipe. So the thinking business must be in doldrums.
Yes we are forced to worry about terrorism, load shedding, high prices, payment of bills may be this is what we should be thinking of.
Is "Sharia compliant" a new buzz word to state that minorities need not apply?
Your analysis of the Thinking Business was really insightful. Not that you discussed it in depth, but the simple way you explained the leverage certain forces try to create through think tanks. It surprised me. I didnt know. Like.... its thinking...how would one expect to purchase it?
If not her, who else can write such a peice, Government control on public policy and debate is deep, we see over the years even private think tanks like Social Policy Development Center (SPDC) do not accept people like Qaiser Bangali, consequently what is happening we have given up question what Economic Survey or State of Economy-Annual Report by State Bank writes, in general i observe beside on Political and strategic matters, there is furhter decline in interest on social development issues, public policy, one hardly sees a good review of Government's development agenda or strategy, alam papers run just statement of finance ministers always talking of 'New Direction' in economy.
How can you think , if you are Sharia compliant. The first and foremost principle of our religion is to accept blindly the unseen.
To think, discuss, argue and raise questions is ....Unthinkable
What a beautiful and aptly chosen title of this article. In the society, there is a general downfall in the realm of thinking and intellect whether there is a think tank, a faculty of a university or a specific platform for thinkers.
While I fully agree with Dr Ayesha over poor quality research in Pakistani think tanks, her assertion that such entities are run to push a certain establishmentarian agenda is not exclusive only to Pakistan or hire ex-bureaucrats on board.
the more well-known think tanks world wide, CFR, IISS, Carnegie, CSIS, etc all cater to the foreign policy objectives of their respective governments. India's IDSA, IPCS etc also cater to the Indian security establishment 'hawks' with regards to its own policies.
then we have foreign donors coming in like KAS etc. I say, how is that any different than what goes on in UK, USA, Canada etc? The issue, Dr sahiba, should be of poor quality research as the think tank culture still evolves here. The role they play will hopefully change with time but remember they are no different in the outset with what the famous organisations do.
Seven years back, the price of a flat for an officer upto grade 21 retiring at 60 was 75 lac. Tell me how an honest govt retiree could pay it. What does a major or colonel pay for his flat or plot, his congenital right, even if he did not spend a day in combat. Obviously, disgusted at corruption galore in PHA, PHF and other civilian bodies, the DHA converted itself into a mafia. The other day a retd COAS sold his plot for just 35 crore. Compare it with billions that a PM makes under the table, or as sleeping partner in government's projects, construction works, supplies of medicines and other things.
It's the same case in any other part of the world where all these interest groups run, fund and help think tanks, so it's nothing to criticize about in Pakistan... While I agree that the overall quality of research is low in Pakistan; it will evolve over time; think tank culture is still new.
Miss Siddiqa it seems is more frustrated about being jobless than concerned about the quality of research...
Ayesha ji,
Thinking is over rated. Pakistan's caretaker is the power greater than any. So, why worry? Our deep state will take care of everything. Have faith and relax. Enjoy life.