There’s been a lot of debate recently about the number of advisors appointed by previous governments, the criteria for selecting them, and their exact role. The answers to these important questions often depend on the specific context, and even what that individual advisor’s job entails. As a former civil service official who has worked under different administrations, I can tell you it’s rarely a clear-cut “either/or” situation. Generally speaking, you’ll find two main types of advisors within government.
These advisors – admittedly not all – are typically aligned with the ruling party’s agenda. Their main job is to help the government achieve its political goals and deliver on election promises. They often have personal connections to politicians, perhaps through campaign work, long-standing relationships with ministers, or shared ideological beliefs. Their advice tends to focus on feasibility and political impact, considering not only how effective a policy might be, but also its public reception and how well it fits with the party’s platform.
There are also generally chosen for their expertise. Their primary qualification is deep knowledge, a strong research background, or extensive practical experience in a specific field, like economics, public health, etc. They’re expected to be objective, meaning their role is to offer analysis and recommendations based on data and best practices, without letting political implications sway them. Their advice focuses on effectiveness and long-term outcomes, aiming for the most efficient or impactful solution to a problem, often looking beyond immediate political cycles. Sometimes, career civil servants within government departments also fall into this category when providing policy advice.
The truth is, the reality often exists in a grey area. Even highly independent experts might be selected by a political government, and their advice could be selectively used or interpreted to fit a political narrative. Conversely, many political staff possess significant expertise themselves and are genuinely striving for the best outcomes, even if they operate within political constraints.
The ideal scenario for effective governance usually involves a healthy tension and collaboration between both types of advisors. Politically aligned advisors understand the public’s mandate, while independent experts provide a robust, factual foundation for decision-making.
Identity Politics, Economic Injustice, and the Erosion of Moderation
The University of Pennsylvania is set to ban transgender athletes, a decision stemming from the controversy surrounding swimmer Lia Thomas. Power often proves intoxicating and corrupting, leading to a reckless disregard for those perceived as a threat to deeply held beliefs and interests. We’ve seen the immense and rapid influence gained by movements like #MeToo and, especially, Cancel Culture, primarily through social media. This has ruined the careers and lives of public figures, including those who dared to publicly challenge hard-line “woke” ideology and its resulting government policies.
I’ve long held that humankind, both individually and collectively, struggles with moderation. Yet, while the social and political pendulum can swing to extremes, such significant shifts are to be expected in response to historical social injustices, including those endured by the transgender community.
A similar pendulum-swing effect might have occurred in Western neoliberal democracies in response to prolonged and immense economic injustices. However, this has largely been prevented by the formidable obstacle of virtual corporatist and significant power/money interests.
During major demonstrations against economic injustices, the police and military could — and likely would — claim they had to “bust heads” (to use political terminology) to prioritize maintaining law and order. With a complacent, if not compliant, corporate news media dominating nearly all news outlets, absurdly unjust inequities and inequalities can persist.
Military Bases and National Sovereignty in Mauritius and Sweden
One reason why I have, for some years, been interested in moving to Mauritius (myself and perhaps also my business) is that I have seen Mauritius as a possible model for a peaceful country. You seem to have avoided both civil wars and participation in foreign wars, so far.
However, I have now read that the extended territory of Mauritius will most likely include the military base on Diego Garcia, perhaps even hosting nuclear weapons at times, and that the Chagossians will most likely not be able to return to their former homes in the foreseeable future. This makes me incredibly sad, especially after living through how my home country, Sweden, has changed from a peaceful country with much respect for human rights to the opposite.
The risk seems to be increasing that both countries — Sweden and Mauritius — would be willing to participate even in a possible nuclear holocaust (at least by providing bases). If it does not come to that extreme, both our countries seem to have voluntarily given up an important part of democracy. If the military in a country is not under the democratic control of its people, can you truly say that you have a working democracy?
For example, if President Trump decides to launch further attacks against Iran, this may, in the near future, include aircraft taking off from Mauritian territory (Diego Garcia), but the people of Mauritius will not have anything to say about this. In the past, the U.S. has also been able to do anything on Diego Garcia, including suspected torture, but the important difference is that soon this may happen under your watch.
In a similar way, if Trump decides to put military pressure on our neighbour Denmark regarding Greenland, Trump may use U.S. military forces based in Sweden according to our “Defence Cooperation Agreement,” and the Swedish people will not have anything to say about this. Our own military is even becoming an “escort service” for the U.S., having to provide assistance to the U.S. Sweden has already sent people to be tortured, in cooperation with the U.S. It is also unclear who will be responsible for cleaning up toxic remnants from their military activity, etc. In the case of Sweden, we will be bound by the agreement with the U.S. for at least the next ten years, and we don’t get paid any lease or rent for U.S. bases.
As I understand, the agreement that Mauritius has signed (but hopefully not ratified) with the UK is for a much longer time period, but Mauritius will receive substantial “blood” money for Diego Garcia. I hope you realize in time that no deal with the UK about Chagos is better than your existing bad deal. You should have justice on your side, to stand up for all the Chagossians’ right to return, to continue being a role model for peace, and to keep democracy for all your territory.
