Yes, it is an ART; but it leads tot non-decisions

Anthony Judge 2021 blog on “The art of non-decision-making” identifies 14 aspects of the art of non-decision-making based on experiences serving in, and observing, a range of international organisations.

1. Definitional games: This is the process of defining categories in one way in one document or organizational unit, and then defining them in another way elsewhere or at some later time. The art is to use this approach to obscure opportunities or to selectively advance particular strategies. At the same time competing definitions may be used to justify apparently incompatible strategies.

2. Neglected or repressed categories: This approach is familiar to those who experience discrimination, whether in terms of race, gender, age, intelligence, class or culture.Women experience exclusion through exclusive reference to the male gender in documents supposedly relevant to both female and male. Unwritten rules may specifically exclude those of a particular ethnic group or class. Non-English speakers, for example, may be handicapped in their access to information. Skilful neglect of certain categories can ensure that any initiative will be subsequently undermined.

3. Over-simplification: This technique is typical of those forcing through an agenda in which it is convenient to exclude categories and especially the relationships between them. Many declarations of principles and ethical charters follow this pattern. This is commonly justified by the necessity to render the text simple enough to be communicable to the media and to various constituencies. Unfortunately the process of simplification seldom ensures the memorability of the text and tends to guarantee limited life for initiatives based on such oversimplification.

4. Over-complexification: This technique is widely practiced by experts to limit access to their field of knowledge. It becomes a means of requiring that the expert be personally consulted in order to convey the insights in practice.

5. Narrowing the time-frame: This technique consists of elaborating initiatives without any reference to historical precedents from which insights might be usefully obtained to ensure the viability of the new initiative. By encouraging ignorance of the past, in pursuit of the current initiative, there is every probability that the new one will remain equally unmemorable. Similarly, by avoiding sensitivity to more than the short-term future, factors in the medium and longer term (that will probably counteract the initiative) can be ignored.

6. Focusing on the inaccessible: In one form this technique involves one of the parties in a decision-making arena indicating that they are prepared to go ahead ‘only if everybody else agrees’. This gives the appearance of a positive approach. It is especially successful in avoiding decision-making if it is unlikely that others will agree in this way. In another variant, the party indicates that it is only prepared to consider an issue within a broader framework (eg., not overfishing of a particular species but of fish stocks in general). This ensures avoidance of decisions if other parties are not prepared to explore broader issues even though there may be scope for agreement on narrower issues.

7. Ignoring cultural variants: This technique emphasizes paradigms typical of a dominant culture to ensure that alternative cultural perspectives are demeaned, ignored or treated as irrelevant or outdated. Faced with this inadequacy, a response may simply be to provide translations without recognizing that these do not necessarily provide an adequate vehicle for other cultural perspectives.

8. Favouring the fashionable: At any one time, there are fashionable conceptual approaches to issues, and consultants ‘on the circuit’ who enthusiastically promote their use. By encouraging institutions to take up a succession of particular fads, a broader view of the range of possible initiatives is inhibited. No sense of the strengths, limitations and complementarity of the fads emerges.

9. Rejection through negative association: Genuine innovations can be successfully marginalized and rejected by focusing attention on any disasters associated with their development.

10. Disqualification: Evidence and insights are easily dismissed by claiming that proponents are in some way unqualified to comment on the topic in question. Many conceptual innovations have been subjected to this process, especially since it is difficult to be ‘qualified’ in a field which is only in the process of emerging.

11. Conceptual ‘roll-on, roll-off’: This process involves apparent acceptance of a new perspective – but for a period only. When collective attention is focused elsewhere, decreasing weight is attached to the new perspective, until it can finally be ignored.

12. ‘Classification’ to protect interests: New insights and approaches can be effectively quashed by appropriating them – whether in the national interest or under corporate copyright. This process may be undertaken preemptively by requiring that all personnel sign nondisclosure agreements. Nobody is then qualified to comment publicly on issues documented in classified documents.

13. Exertion of pressure: This is one of the most developed techniques. It can be effectively used in any peer group simply by implying that failure to act in a particular way will cast an unfavourable light, prejudicing career advancement, funding, honours, etc (‘the stick’). Pressure can be increased by offering rewards, career advancement, or promises of honours (‘the carrot’). Pressure can be further increased by unadulterated bribery and intimidation (including threats of exposure or even physical violence).

14. Delay: This classical technique may be used in combination with several others. A variety of excellent reasons may be found to delay decision-making until ‘the right moment’.

The blog post from Anthony Judge is based on an extract from “Reframing the Art of Non-Decision-Making – Conceptual gerrymandering on a global scale” which was published in laetus in praesens on 9 January 2017. This article defines “some basic practices in non-decision-making“

1. Stress positive achievements : It is essential to use the full panoply of public relations skills to stress the positive achievements of an international community initiative – no matter how insignificant they may be, or how unrelated to the basic challenge. For example one of the five ‘solid’ achievements claimed by negotiator Richard Holbrooke, during an August 1997 visit to Bosnia, was to have ensured a three digit telephone code for the country. Unfortunately, in the case of the G7 Summits and others, journalists have become increasingly sceptical about the lack of significant content in the Final Communiqués — many regular intergovernmental conferences are no longer considered to be of media interest. The efforts to stress the positive may be taken to such lengths that any critical questioning is rejected. This provides an excellent cover for non-decision-making since minimal, token, cosmetic responses can then be extolled as significant positive achievements.
   
2. Exclude critical reporters : Strong criticism of non-decision-making can however be toned down, and even eliminated, by implying that journalists, and others, who are too critical will not necessarily receive an invitation to the following event. Since for some journalists, this is a direct threat to their career path, this can be very effective. Overt exclusion on this basis is of course not possible, but for the inviting body, it is only necessary to imply that critics may not be invited. A major controversial intervention to the 1999 Davos Forum was simply suppressed from the official report of it — although journalists commented extensively on it in the media.
   
3. Rotation of praise and blame : It is vital for parties to international initiatives to appear successful, especially to their national constituencies. Basic to the art of non-decision-making is to allow each party to take turns in proposing an initiative in response to a crisis, thus achieving widespread positive recognition. One or more of the other parties must then be prepared to oppose this initiative in some way – thus ensuring that no decision is taken. Other parties can remain neutral during this process. For this process to be viable over a period of time, each party must take turns in proposing initiatives and opposing them. In this way the group can maintain media interest and an impression of getting somewhere, provided individual parties are prepared to weather their turn as ‘opposer’ and the heavy criticism this may arouse. The advantage of this technique, is that those making proposals do not have to face up to any possibility that these may be accepted. The procedure is therefore risk free. This process is somewhat analogous to price-fixing rings in business in that their existence can be easily denied.
   
4. Proposal of solutions based on unacceptable criteria : In the event of an international crisis, such as the massacres in Rwanda, the party in need may specifically exclude assistance or intervention of a particular kind. It is then possible for those desiring to be seen to be taking an initiative, but unwilling to do so in practice, to gain widespread approval by proposing precisely the form of assistance which has been rejected in advance as unacceptable. This is absolutely risk free for the proposer. The French and Belgian governments have been able to use this technique with great success with respect to the Rwandan crisis.
   
5. Focus on monitoring, review and study : This is a classical technique that is widely used. In the case of any crisis, attention is focused on the need for more information, study and analysis — in the absence of which appropriate action can naturally not be taken. The impression is created that something is being done through a “study commission” — indeed a decision of a kind has been made to undertake the study. No action is however taken on the crisis itself. Indeed the period of study may well exceed the period of duration of the crisis. This approach is much appreciated by academic groups who receive scarce funds to engage in the study. This approach was extensively used in relation to the ‘Gulf War syndrome’ and to the BSE (“mad cow”) crisis. It is an easy way of dealing with many environmental issues, since many of the critics earn their living from monitoring-related processes.
   
6. Displace attention to reframe the challenge : In a crisis, as in the Middle East, where two parties are engaged in acts unacceptable to each other, if media attention can be focused on the acts of one, then those of the other can be treated as of little consequence. In the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the media focus on “terrorist bombing” by Palestinians has successfully obscured the ‘settlement building’ by Israelis. Israelis are then able to insist that every priority be given to security restrictions on Palestinians as a prerequisite to wider discussions – but without in any way diminishing their ongoing settlement building programme. Since this programme, as a form of structural violence,  is a prime cause of continuing Palestinian protest, the Israelis are able to set up a situation in which nothing will be done about the crisis as a whole. This approach succeeds best when “settlement building” can be framed as a positive, innocent, non-violent activity in no way comparable to ‘suicide bombing’.
   
7. Celebrate achievements : Under conditions of effective non-response to pressing issues, much may be achieved by engaging in celebration. Any suitable anniversary may be chosen – let’s have a party. Recent examples include the 50^th Anniversary of the United Nations, or the forthcoming millennium – although the Olympic Games also serve this function to some extent. By devoting sufficient resources to the celebration, the media are distracted. Critics are marginalized as engaging in ‘sour grapes’. If the celebration requires several years planning, then attention can be usefully channelled over that period from other concerns on which action is more difficult.
   
8. Scapegoating : This is the classic technique of imputing inability to act effectively to the actions of some other group. Provided it remains possible to locate or create scapegoats, decision-making can effectively be avoided. This has been extensively practiced in the Northern Ireland crisis.
   
9. Claim unproven links : This approach is used to deny the relationship between two phenomena : acid rain and deforestation, offal reinforced feedstuffs and BSE, etc. It is then possible to avoid decision-making on the ‘unproven’ causative factor. Scientists can always be found to question the evidence for any link found by some other group of scientists.