Privatisation of Politics and Diplomacy: Death of Charlie Kirk and How We Are Reacting

In recent days, one of the most covered political topics by the global media was the assassination and death of Charlie Kirk. Narrowing down Kirk's profession seems more difficult than it appears to be, despite his popularity and fame. He was an individual, a social media influencer, a founder and CEO of a political NGO. After all, no matter how popular and famous he was, Charlie Kirk was an unelected citizen.

The funeral held in Arizona on September 21st had elements that are not typically expected at a funeral for an individual who never held public office or served in a uniformed service. It began with the American national anthem, accompanied by the US Armed Forces' colour guards. Some prominent speakers included Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, JD Vance, and Donald Trump. According to Sky News, this is the first time a US president and vice president have spoken at a funeral service for a non-elected citizen. Before the funeral, the White House released a statement offering condolences for Kirk's death, demonstrating the president's attention to Kirk.

This displays what has been actively and progressively happening in the US, and arguably other parts of the world: the privatisation of politics and diplomacy. Privatisation was traditionally used to refer to the transition of public sector work to the private sector, as observed in the UK during the economic reforms implemented by neoliberalists. Privatisation usually pertained to economic organs of the public sector, such as utilities, transportation or medical services. However, the US is now going through what might be the privatisation of the non-economic organs of the country, including its politics and diplomacy.

Privatisation of politics and diplomacy attempts to reallocate the centre and source of political power and influence from orthodox institutions, such as political parties, government agencies, and traditional bureaucrats to unelected individuals, major corporations, and religious establishments. Last June, the US Army commissioned four officers to the Army Reserve, not as second lieutenants but as lieutenant colonels. These four individuals are Sankar, Bosworth, Weil, and McGrew, each an executive member at Palantir, Meta, OpenAI, and Machines Lab. When Trump entered the White House in his second term, the Briefing Room allocated specific seats to the 'new media' as a counter to the 'legacy media', which consisted heavily of right-wing media on digital platforms.

One may ask, how is this particular privatisation process different, and what are the possible problems? Privatisation was generally used as an economic policy to achieve certain economic goals, such as increasing competition, tax revenue, and private investment. Most privatisation of economic instruments is based on the concrete belief that a market economy with minimal government intervention can increase economic efficiency. Whether this statement is true or not, it is certainly arguable that the private sector plays a more significant role in the economy compared to government and politics.

The government risks becoming undemocratic if politics are privatised. As the power allocation and distribution through important government offices often tend to be assigned to individuals with close private connections, it threatens the system in which public opinions are reflected in decision-making procedures. Moreover, as these individuals and private sector actors tend to closely align themselves with non-political bodies, such as corporations and religious organisations, the constitutional values of a neutral government may be under attack. This was observable in Kirk's funeral, as Turning Point USA, founded by Kirk, itself makes close ties to Christian values and has several religious figures appearing at his funeral. If non-constitutional values are further incorporated within the government, it may lead to a radicalised policy in the benefit of certain private actors.

Diplomacy may see a gradual but significant change under privatisation. Traditional diplomacy has long been a state actor-centred relation. With more private actors influencing foreign policies in the government, not through civil organisations like NGOs, the interests of states are represented under the principle of sovereignty, which may be altered. This may lead to an intensification of global inequality as corporate values may prioritise maximisation of profit, leading to a lack of inter-state cooperation and ODAs. Politics influences diplomacy, but the tradition of diplomatic professionalism has been a linear force in international relations. The recent nomination of a crucial diplomatic mission to a heavily privatised political interest damages diplomatic professionalism. The recent nomination of Nick Adams as US ambassador to Malaysia can be an example.

A flexible government that recognises the changes and trends in the private sector should be appreciated. However, as we move into a world with diversifying cultures, ethnicities, and ideas, it is more important than ever to establish a universal value. Those universal values must not lay the foundation of a country upon a particular group's interest, but should provide a sense of unity to all, so that we may take a step away from a polarising society.