The long history of ignorance

Former government minister and host of The rest is politics podcast Rory Stewart hosts a BBC Radio 4 series called The long history of ignorance.

In an episode called Ignorance in politics, Stewart explores the role of ignorance, uncertainty and expertise in political decision-making, raising some interesting ideas for the leaders of any complex organisation.

• Complexity of political decisions: Stewart argues that political decisions are rarely based on simple knowledge or facts. Instead, they involve moral judgments, uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes. The idea that better knowledge or more expert advice would solve political problems is misleading, he says.
• Experience in Afghanistan: Stewart reflects on his time in Afghanistan, where he observed a disconnect between political rhetoric and the reality on the ground. Despite efforts to bring expert knowledge to policymakers, their strategies often failed due to factors like groupthink, optimism bias and institutional pressures.
• Limitations of expertise: Stewart highlights the limitations of relying solely on experts for political decisions. Even the best-informed experts can be wrong, and their advice may be influenced by biases or incomplete knowledge. The public's mistrust of experts, as seen in Michael Gove's famous remark about "having enough of experts," is also discussed.
• Challenges in governance: Stewart shares his personal experience as a government minister, where he was often assigned to portfolios he knew little about. He discusses how the complexity of modern governance makes it nearly impossible for any one person to fully understand their responsibilities, highlighting the limitations of knowledge in government.
• The role of uncertainty: The episode emphasises that political decision-making often involves navigating uncertainty, where outcomes are unknown and unpredictable. This uncertainty makes it difficult for politicians to make informed decisions, and they often have to rely on judgment rather than definitive knowledge.
• Heroic leadership vs. institutional design: Stewart critiques the idea of relying on heroic leaders like Winston Churchill to solve political problems. Instead, he suggests that better institutional design, such as incorporating feedback loops and more participatory forms of democracy could be more effective.
• Radical solutions: Stewart proposes that instead of trying to improve politicians or rely on experts, we should consider more radical changes to our political systems, such as decentralising decision-making or using citizens' assemblies to make important decisions.
• Localised stakeholder engagement: One of Stewart’s guests, data scientist Tom Forth, says: ‘No one can have a full understanding and get things right all the time. So I think in terms of promoting public engagement with expertise, I think it's really important that we do that at a more local level. We lose something if we consider all of our expertise and all of our universities to be national organisations. I think there's huge value in them being considered local and approachable, and of the people, and have the community reach in and question and engage with them.’

In this programme, Stewart challenges the notion that political problems can be solved by simply increasing knowledge or relying on experts. He argues for a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of governance, the limitations of expertise, and the importance of institutional design to manage ignorance and uncertainty in politics—and perhaps in other realms too.

Listen in full via BBC Sounds.