How not to justify your argument
I didn’t live in Belfast during the Troubles, and I’m very aware that I can’t even get near a sense of what it must have been like. Therefore I’ve decided not to comment directly on the proposals in the Eames Bradley report.
However, the interview on Hearts and Minds last night raised some more general points about what I’m beginning to call the ‘new élite political accommodation’ in Northern Ireland. By this I mean how the plethora of elected and appointed bodies is moving towards agreement about workable governance, backed up by the civil service, the co-ordinating bodies in the voluntary sector and to some extent the trades unions. More of that another time.
Eames and Bradley were obviously upset and to some extent baffled by the response to their report. They have done Northern Ireland a great service by carrying out the work, whatever one may think of the recommendations. But their responses to questioning on Hearts and Minds brought out three justifications often used by élites:
1. It was a difficult task
The answer to this is, yes, that’s why people of standing and experience were asked to examine the issue, and why we intend to treat your conclusions with respect. But we are still entitled to ask questions and to disagree.
2. If you knew what we know, you would agree with us
A particularly powerful argument in this case. Eames and Bradley have spent eighteen months listening to what people want, which, they said, is as much information as possible about the circumstances in which their loved ones died. But it’s not logical to assume that, if all of us were party to that experience, we would come to the same conclusions about how the desired outcome should be achieved.
3. Well, what would you do instead?
This is irrelevant in a debate about what has been proposed rather than what the alternatives might be. It’s particularly inappropriate to ask a journalist this question, as was done last night. Élites are very fond of asking the great unwashed how they would deal with the massive responsibilities involved in governance. The answer might be: better than you think.
So if you hear a person in a position of power using any of those arguments, start asking questions - but with due respect.
4 comments:
Hmm. . good point. I'm sorry they were uncomfortable in presenting their findings. "If you knew what we know" sounds particularly patronising when talking to a Northern audience I must say.
I'm not sure what the answer is but I'm sure it's not throwing cash at families on either side. I sincerely hope they asked 'the great unwashed' what they thought might resolve the issue prior to actually compiling the report. I did like the idea of money to tackle sectarianism and practical assistance.
Baino - the format I was discussing was a TV interview, which might have been part of the problem as they didn't get the chance to set out the recommendations in full, the discussion was very much only about the one very controversial proposal of the £12,000 payments.
I think the 'if you knew what we know' approach applied to the aggregate of what they'd heard rather than to individual cases. Given that they knew (I presume) that the interview was going to be mainly about the one thing, I wanted to hear a case put for what they'd found that had led them to make that proposal, and which other solutions they had thought might be appropriate but had discarded.
It's just that I sometimes think people in power lose sight of how they come across to the rest of us, even when their intentions are good as in this case.
Well, what would you do instead?
I think so many things in Government are decided without the full support of the great 'unwashed'. I suppose that is one of the pitfalls of a 'democractic' system. We get our day to vote and then our elected representatives treat us like stupid kids. Though is there better alternative to democracy?
It may be a very well meaning proposal or it may be a cynical attempt to just brush everything under the carpet.
Northern Ireland is abnormal & has a way to go
Geri - interesting question. What would I do instead? Well I don't believe in sitting back and taking teh view that once we've elected a government they can do what they like. But I don't think there was an alternative with this issue to appointing people who are not politicians to review it, due to our divided political arena.
Had I been one of the individuals involved, I would have justified my conclusions more carefully. I think they mean well but were perhaps naive in not understanding how much controversy one particular proposal would cause.
Post a Comment