Call it “relationship therapy”, the thesis with which Timo Maas received his PhD from Wageningen University last week. He sees, he says, a couple on the couch who have not discussed with each other for years what they actually expect from the relationship. “And who now blame each other that the relationship is not doing what they want.”
That relationship is not very romantic, but it is relevant: Maas (30) talks about knowledge and policy, or scientific expertise on the one hand and politics and society on the other. As an external PhD candidate, Maas investigated this relationship during his work as a researcher at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), which, among other things, investigates the climate plans of political parties and the government. “I thought it would be interesting to reflect on that relationship from practice.”
What he saw: “A mismatch between hope and reality.” “Society and politics sometimes like to think too much: if we just call in scientists or a planning agency, they can propose what we should do with a report or advice.” As if somewhere on top of a mountain lies the scientific answer to the question of what is right, and politicians have to climb that mountain. “But it is not up to us as scientists to say which direction things should go, what is good and what is not good,” says Maas. “There are values underneath that scientific advice, for example in the considerations of what is and is not included.”
Maas calls politicians’ penchant for following experts a “technocratic logic”: expertise is seen as a referee who sets the rules within which political debate can take place. “The invisible dynamic within that logic is that experts will discipline the wishes of political parties. With the risk that they will ultimately prescribe what the nitrogen policy should be, for example, or what corona measures should be taken. And politics and society allow it to happen, or sometimes even welcome it.”
We spoke more than a week before the Central Planning Bureau (CPB) presented the calculations of the party programs and the PBL presented its ‘reflection’ on the parties’ sustainability plans, and more than a week before VVD party leader Dilan Yesilgöz said in an election debate that her desired increase of the minimum wage depends on the results of those calculations. Later in the debate she accused Pieter Omtzigt of not having his program calculated.
Critics say: it is lazy that many parties do not have their programs calculated, and it takes away from a shared reality.
“I think you can also create that shared basis without having to take detailed measures. And what exactly does such a calculation say? For example, we see that the analyzes that the PBL makes of the sustainability plans are often reduced to a report mark by the media. As if there is only one way to become more sustainable. While: you can go for nuclear energy, you can hope for technological solutions, focus on CO2-underground storage, or arguing for less consumption. All those routes may lead to a 90 percent reduction, but they have a completely different society behind them. I think voters are more interested in that.”
Are parties still able to present competing visions? Technocratic logic seems to be a substitute for fighting out ideological differences.
“I would characterize it more as a disease phenomenon than as a substitute. Isn’t it a shame if politics is reduced to a technocratic battle over who gets the best out of the CPB or PBL figures?”
You also see this technocratic logic, says Maas, “when parties or ministers supposedly do not follow scientific advice, or when politicians bring in studies from other institutes and beat each other over the ears with objective knowledge. Then you get an abundance of objectivity.”
Is that bad?
“It doesn’t help if you pretend that there is only one optimal, objective solution to a problem, and ignore that there is also a conflict between different interests, norms and values. After all, in a pluralistic society there are different political movements. But in the Netherlands there is a strong tendency to ignore these contradictions.”
Perhaps it helps to have a shared factual basis.
“That presupposes that neutral, objective knowledge can be produced. I dispute that. Knowledge production is political, based on beliefs and values. And now your next question is: aren’t you going to put everything into perspective?”
Indeed. The ultimate consequence is the creation of parallel realities, in which everyone has their own ‘facts’.
“I am not convinced that we should therefore make so-called objective knowledge very important, that it should be given a leading role in politics. Because then you rule out alternatives to the dominant political order in advance.”
Isn’t it precisely objective knowledge that is important? It is evident that the earth is warming.
“Certainly. But there are also different options for what you can do about it. Take fossil subsidies, which the PBL recently discussed a report published. Depending on your goal with sustainability, some subsidies may still be desirable. The underlying question: what kind of energy transition do you actually want? That question is political. A democracy is characterized by the fact that there are different images of what a good society is. Then you can’t leave it to science to think about what good change is.”
Maas therefore counters this technocracy with a ‘political logic’, in which knowledge policy makes it clear which normative choices politicians can make. “Think of it as an employee in a board game store, where you as a customer can ask for help: I kind of like this, can you think along? The employee will indicate what you can consider and make the choices explicit. In this way, knowledge policy can make the battle of ideas explicit, depending on what you consider fair. The question shifts from ‘are we doing things right?’ to ‘are we doing the right things?’”
There is, says Maas, in the Netherlands a “reflex that politicization is by definition bad. That comes from that consensus idea. While the question is: what kind of society do we want? That is what I try to make clear in my dissertation: instead of prescribing what politics should do under the guise of objectivity, ‘good’ knowledge can fuel political struggle, make it clear that there are alternatives, and thus strengthen democracy. Science and politics must tackle this together.”