Critical Analysis Of Ideological Standpoint
The ideology of certain individuals mostly correlates strongly with perception as well as belief which tends to justify the involvement of the government in all aspects of social protection (Jensen and Petersen 2017). Critical engagement with the work is important for the development of own arguments, analysis as well as interpretations. The main purpose of the study is to focus on the critical analysis of the three organizations from the political as well as ideological standpoint namely Open Society Foundations, Center for China & Globalization, and Demos.
Open Society Foundation has been considered the largest private funder across the world for democratic governance, justice as well as human rights. The organization tends to provide a huge amount of grants through the network of regional and national foundations. Open Society Foundation helps to build inclusive and vibrant strategies in the aspect of rule of law and human rights, the government of which are open towards the participation of the people (Open Society Foundations. 2022). It says on its website that it supports independent organizations and voices across the world that provide a dynamic and creative connection between governed and governing. Open Society Foundations are inclined towards making enormous efforts in engaging the citizens not only in voting but also towards ensuring the response of the government to the daily challenges of the people (Correa-Cabrera, Núñez and Ludwig 2021). Open society foundation has been responsible for granting to Palestinian organizations like Al-Mezan, and Al-Haqalong with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. The group has been known for promoting the Durban Strategy by portraying Israel as an apartheid state and racist (Independent. 2022). As a result of that, it has been criticized by the Pro-Israel Editorials and press. The compromising of the foreign policy by the Open Society Foundation has made the United States view it as the least transparent think tank in the United States (Influence Watch. 2022). Though it involves inclusive strategies, the operation of the organization is complex and exports leftist policies across the world.
Center for China & Globalization (CCG) is known as the Chinese non-governmental think tank which is based in Beijing. According to the website, CCG is a national postdoctoral program research center that is certified by the Ministry of Human Resources in China. It is engaged mainly in the research on globalization and China from the international outlook. On the website, the company has also written regarding its involvement in the promotion of global governance and national development policies (Centre for China & Globalization. 2022). However, in contrast with what is stated on the website that the Center for China and Globalization shares the research findings on international issues on the website, it can be argued that there lies a certain inherent bias within the analysis done by the think tank. This remains attributed to the founding ideology. In the case of CCG in China, it tends to identify a particular ideology as well as the political philosophy which cannot always be said to be politically neutral. Thus, their research appears to be biased in the aspect of the national development of China, though focuses on the international outlook.
Demos has been considered one of the leading third party think-tanks in the UK. On the website, it has been explored that Demos tends to focus on the five research areas that consist of empowered citizens, power and institutions along with inclusive communities, shared prosperity as well as CASM (Demos. 2022). The company creates original research as well as publishes thought-provoking events as well as innovative thinkers. On the website, the company has informed that the four areas of focus lie in the aspect of industrial energy, investment, international institutions, and democratic endorsement of taxation. However, the composition of demos remains incapable of securing democratic legitimacy as it is not democratically decided itself. On the website of Demo, it has been mentioned that the company works with the community and social leaders for renewing Britain (Demos. 2022). However, their approach remains confined to public funding and the media exposure of the opportunities. This remains a kind of research for hire which in many cases contrasts with the idealized image of the scholarship that is disinterested. The analysis of the sentiment of the public policy which mostly relies on the repurposing of the data that are behavioral in nature and produced within the political context limits its legitimacy and validity (Ulbricht 2020). The normative concept of the demos remains unclear. The boundaries for the founding decision remain unestablished which makes it unclear who needs to take part in decision-making. The legitimacy of demos also suffers from a lack of clarity. Thus, the broader normative dimension of Demos is vague.
Lastly, it can be concluded that the three organizations Open Society Foundations along with the Centre for China and Globalization and Demos possess a certain ideology towards contributing to a political and social strategy with the help of research and advocacy. The ideas and arguments of demos and open society foundations align with the self-point of view. The ideas of demos align with my own ideas which mostly reflect bringing all people together and the innovation of the company across the party lines for making things done. However, I tend to line up with the arguments against demos and the reason is that demos involve scraping which consists of a lack of knowledge regarding the context within which the data is produced. As a result of that, the argument against demos goes with self-understanding. Another company with which self-thought matches is Open Society Foundations. I tend to support the ideas of the company towards supporting the citizens. Despite that, criticism of George Soros by the pro-Israel group has created a supporting thought towards the arguments. The leak of about 2500 documents has created a raging reaction from conspiracy theorists and critics. This has made me support the arguments of the critics. Open society tends to offer grants for human rights groups along with the development of policy reform and projects. Thus, the relevance of think tanks possesses less to do with the research in social science, though they remain the alternative template for the organization of knowledge.
References
Centre for China & Globalization. 2022. About Us. [online] Available at: <http://en.ccg.org.cn/overview> [Accessed 16 August 2022].
Correa-Cabrera, G., Núñez, L. and Ludwig, H., 2021. Assessing the International Influence of Private Philanthropy: The Case of Open Society Foundations. Global Studies Quarterly, 1(4), p.ksab039.
Demos. 2022. Our Work - Demos. [online] Available at: <https://demos.co.uk/about/our-work/> [Accessed 16 August 2022].
Independent. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/george-soros-proisrael-groups-conspiracy-theorists-open-society-foundations-leak-hack-documents-a7193166.html> [Accessed 16 August 2022].
Influence Watch. 2022. Open Society Foundations (OSF). [online] Available at: <https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/> [Accessed 16 August 2022].
Jensen, C. and Petersen, M.B., 2017. The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), pp.68-83.
Open Society Foundations. 2022. Open Society Foundations—Who We Are. [online] Available at: <https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are> [Accessed 16 August 2022].
Ulbricht, L., 2020. Scraping the demos. Digitalization, web scraping and the democratic project. Democratization, 27(3), pp.426-442.
