THE FRIDAY REVIEW: No More Commissions

We live in an age of independent commissions. Bipartisan, non-partisan, or a pragmatic mixture of both, these commissions draw on political figures, civil society groups, charismatic individuals, and professional experts to resolve difficult political issues in a consensual, non-conflictual way. Nowhere have they been more prevalent than the war on terror. Besides the famous 9/11 commission, there has also been the independent commission on pre-war intelligence. In England, the Hutton Inquiry investigated the death of Iraqi arms expert David Kelly, becoming embroiled in the debate about the Iraq War. US Labor and activist groups (like Amnesty International) have called for a commission on Abu Ghraib and torture. Lefty groups have parroted the form, founding a ‘Bush commission’ to try the President for various war crimes and crimes against humanity.

These commissions have the appearance of being critical devices, but they are false friends. No doubt, their independence from any particular party and especially the Bush administration makes them appear like they can uncover the lies and deceptions of all involved. Moreover, they appear to be able to give impartial policy recommendations, untouched by special interests and partisan projects. Yet these very features are what makes them problematic.

First, there is something in bad-faith about hoping independent authorities will uncover hidden hypocrisy and interests. This reflects a presumption that all politics is in some way corrupt, and that the only way to the real truth is through apolitical inquiries. If the very premise of our criticism is that direct involvement in politics is corrupting then we are likely to remain on the sidelines – hollering and pointing, but never effectively intervening.

Second, imbuing these commissions with authority is an abdication of responsibility by the rest of us. Since the authority of these commissions is based on their lack of affiliation, then they are by nature unaccountable. Looking to them to as critical agents is a bit like asking for divine intervention. The most ‘we’ can do is impugn the independence and truly impartial character of the commission, but our role as political agents is essentially passive. Indeed, there is something profoundly undemocratic and conservative about submitting ourselves to these authorities who draw their legitimacy from their un-representative nature.

Third, not only is it an abdication of responsibility on our part, but also reflects a lack of confidence in the strength of our own arguments. Resorting to independent commissions is a way of trying to borrow the authority of moderate, consensual procedures for a particular political project. There is little reason for such timidity. Indeed, it can lead to outright confusion about the nature of the claims we are making. After all, these commissions operate at the level of individual, criminal responsibility or specific mistakes. As such, they can never be the vehicles for addressing systemic, social problems. They are mechanisms of internal reform, not external criticism. Therefore, any appeal to the authority or statements of such bodies makes it appear we are simply interested in impugning the integrity of a particular individual, or reforming the system, rather than developing a truly independent, critical position. Borrowing the authority of others is no substitute for asserting oneself.

Fourth, in actual fact, the recommendations of these commissions are by necessity moderate in character. They function according to the logic of compromise and consensus. The 9/11 commission’s recommendations were a package of reasonable reforms of the intelligence system in the sense that everyone could agree on them. But it said nothing about the war on terror itself. The point is that, part of the way impartiality and objectivity is secured is by including all sides, which ensures that all fundamental points of disagreement are pushed outside or ignored for the sake of building consensus. Indeed, basic premises – like whether there should be a ‘war on terror’ – are tacitly accepted rather than subjected to critical scrutiny.

And when these kinds of commissions do not make specific recommendations, they are still ineffective on their own precisely because they have no affiliation. For example, the Kay Report found that Bush was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, but this was of no consequence because there was no politically organized body to link this particular finding to an overall critique of the administration. Real criticism is not a matter of finger-pointing and revealing lies, nor about giving pragmatic proposals. It is a matter of giving a particular interpretation to facts, and of making such criticisms politically effective through our own activity. The revelation of lies alone might erode the moral authority of those in power, but it does little to develop a real alternative.

Indeed, at heart it is a question of whether a real alternative exists or not. If it does, then there is no reason to resort to apolitical and unaccountable commissions. Rather, this alternative should be asserted directly, on its own terms, and not expect others to do our dirty work for us. Many activists may not see commissions as substitutes for real opposition, but, as noted at the beginning, still advocate for them as part of a general strategy of opposition. Our argument is that, at best, these are a distraction – a waste of time and effort. At worst, they substitute for the development of real arguments against the politics of fear, and lead us to see politics as mere impartial, consensus-building, rather than as a competition amongst alternatives. It is good to have the truth on our side. But this truth is not merely one of the facts – be they prewar intelligence, or who knew what when. It is also the truth of an analysis of the war on terror, and of an independent, critical principle. An independent commission or tribunal might very well indict Bush for crimes, real and imagined. But it will never indict the war on terror itself. That is something that can only be done politically, in a partisan way. Conflict is not in itself good, but nor is impartiality. Principled partisanship is the essence of politics, and is the only means of effective criticism and of affirming the truth.