ALTHOUGH I appreciate Frans Cronje’s humour, his plea (Bury the flung dung, March 10) also acts as a fig leaf for his denial of the cynicism with which the South African Institute of Race Relations approaches its role.
The impression is reinforced that although it sells itself as a think-tank that promotes policy solutions to support jobs and growth, the institute rather uses issues related to jobs and growth as proxy battles to promote the agenda of select interests (it is for instance aligned and funded by Afriforum) against the government, which it fundamentally opposes.
In isolation, there is nothing wrong with such activity in a free country, but the organisations that engage in it are much more accurately referred to as pressure groups or political action committees than as think-tanks.
Some of the institute’s habits would then make much more sense, such as when it twists critique of its work (which is often informed by conspiracy theories and fear-mongering) to suit its narrative, alleges blanket ignorance on the side of its critics (no matter their bona fides) and merely restates its original position. Other practices, such as masquerading as an investor whisperer while pandering to the lunatic fringe, would be seen more clearly for the hypocrisy they are.
One-sided engagement will not change the minds of any but the converted, and will never grow respect for the institute as a think-tank outside its own echo chamber.
This is unfortunate, for it undermines the constructive contribution of its more useful activities, such as its annual and ad hoc surveys.
Coenraad Bezuidenhout
Melville
South African Institute of Race Relations deputy CEO Frans Cronje. Picture: MARTIN RHODES
ALTHOUGH I appreciate Frans Cronje’s humour, his plea (Bury the flung dung, March 10) also acts as a fig leaf for his denial of the cynicism with which the South African Institute of Race Relations approaches its role.
The impression is reinforced that although it sells itself as a think-tank that promotes policy solutions to support jobs and growth, the institute rather uses issues related to jobs and growth as proxy battles to promote the agenda of select interests (it is for instance aligned and funded by Afriforum) against the government, which it fundamentally opposes.
In isolation, there is nothing wrong with such activity in a free country, but the organisations that engage in it are much more accurately referred to as pressure groups or political action committees than as think-tanks.
Some of the institute’s habits would then make much more sense, such as when it twists critique of its work (which is often informed by conspiracy theories and fear-mongering) to suit its narrative, alleges blanket ignorance on the side of its critics (no matter their bona fides) and merely restates its original position. Other practices, such as masquerading as an investor whisperer while pandering to the lunatic fringe, would be seen more clearly for the hypocrisy they are.
One-sided engagement will not change the minds of any but the converted, and will never grow respect for the institute as a think-tank outside its own echo chamber.
This is unfortunate, for it undermines the constructive contribution of its more useful activities, such as its annual and ad hoc surveys.
Coenraad Bezuidenhout
Melville
