One offshoot of the Brexit aftermath that is particularly disturbing is a growing obsession with the “post-truth” society. This has allegedly sprung into being because politicians who made stuff up polled well in the EU referendum and, as former British secretary of justice Michael Gove said: “People in this country have had enough of experts.”
This assertion has put politicians and the research community on the defensive. It expressed the feeling of being cut adrift by the electorate, which surged through government, the civil service and professional bodies following the referendum result. It has now spiralled into a debate about how to better appeal to “post-truth” citizens, as though they are baffling and lack reason. In fact, those citizens could say the same of the discussions about immigration, public spending and why we were having a referendum in the first place, all of which the politicians did not confront.
Anyway, is the public really sick of experts? Given the provenance of that claim, should not somebody with sense have checked it before we all start trying to work out how to handle it?
Fortunately someone has. The Institute for Government (IfG) has released a poll, conducted by Populus, which suggests that 85 percent of people want politicians to consult professionals and experts when making difficult decisions, and 83 percent want government to make decisions based on objective evidence.
Trust in experts and confidence in government have both increased since a similar poll in 2014, and people who voted leave and remain share much the same view.
This unequivocal finding must now chase the debate. The rush to believe that facts and evidence are not what people want is already streaming through policy and professional circles and influencing a rethink of how to communicate with the public.
A post-Brexit New Scientist editorial proposed communicators of science use more emotion. Civil servants who, pre-referendum, were embracing the demand to share more of the evidence behind policy are now talking as if it were subversive — “now’s not a good time to raise this with the minister.”
No doubt some election 2020 Svengali is right now writing the plans for how to win over a post-truth electorate — more statements on buses. Someone at an event I attended last week declared that while experts are trusted by “people in this room,” ie, professionals, the public out there does not have the same respect for expertise. They do not use it in their daily lives. He clearly does not have a subscription to Sky Sports, where an hour’s viewing guarantees multiple encounters with statistics, unlike the passage of many bills through parliament.
However, this is all a counsel of unnecessary despair and the IfG poll could not make that clearer.
So why is a post-truth, evidence-rejecting public so beguiling? Because, I am afraid, it flatters timidity and easy populism.
Big decisions are hard. Policymaking is not straightforward. There are always trade-offs, mitigating factors and politics to contend with, and these are difficult to communicate. Facts and evidence are disruptive too. They do not always fit easily with scoring points or appealing to prejudices in debates about immigration, drugs or prison sentences. Sometimes they are just hard work to explain. The idea of a post-truth public is an excuse to run from all this.
Yes, people respond to slogans and emotion. Most of us do, but politicians and communicators who insist this means the public does not want to be informed risk driving us to a two-tier society — one in which evidence is discussed in corridors of power, senior common rooms and private members clubs, while publicly leaders just play to the gallery or hide.
Such doublespeak is not an appeal to the public and its priorities. It is elitist and obnoxious. It means that the account of the world that decisionmakers work from goes unscrutinized and fewer of us get to consider the world as it really is. It is the stuff of the 1950s, when what authorities knew privately on subjects, including homosexuality and abortion, did not appear in the public domain. For a healthy society we must insist that we discuss what we know about all aspects of it openly, in public.
At Sense about Science, where I am director, I hear from people all the time about why evidence matters, on subjects as diverse as air pollution, childcare, the safety of military personnel and cause-of-death investigations.
These are people who want to make the best choices and to be able to tell when people in authority are doing so; people who are not looking for a sound bite or a quick fix, who expect policy to draw on experts and evidence.
We all have work to do to create more space for a frank discussion of what we know and a culture where that is expected. Maybe this aggravating debate spawned by Brexit — and the correctives it is now prompting from the IfG and others — is just the catalyst we need.
People’s attraction to some of the dodgiest claims of the referendum was a signal of many things, but it was not an invitation to people in authority to abandon the principle of truthfulness in public life.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.