كيـف تتشـكل أنمـاط التسـييس المختلفـة داخـل البيئـات الم سؤسـية المعاصـرة. تسـييس الاسـتخبارات، فرضيـة القـرب، التحليـل الاسـتخباراتي، الكلمـات المفتاحيـة: صنـع القـرار، الاسـتقلال التحليلـي، التسـييس البنيـوي، التسـييس الإدراكـي. Abstract This study examines the politicisation of intelligence, one of the central issues in intelligence studies and decision-making literature. It starts from the observation that conventional explanations have largely focused on direct political interference in intelligence work, while the interactions between intelligence analysts and decision-makers are often more complex and multifaceted than these explanations suggest. The study therefore seeks to reinterpret the phenomenon of intelligence politicisation through what it terms the “proximity hypothesis”, which views the relationship between analysts and decision-makers as a key variable shaping the production of intelligence knowledge. The study adopts a theoretical and analytical approach based on a critical review of the major literature on intelligence and the intelligence–policy relationship, reorganising it within a unified explanatory framework. In this context, it identifies four principal forms of politicisation: hard politicisation, associated with direct interference; soft politicisation, based on anticipatory adaptation and the selective use of information; structural politicisation, linked to institutional design and organisational processes; and cognitive politicisation, resulting from the convergence of mental frameworks and organisational cultures shared by analysts and decision-makers. The study argues that politicisation is neither a single phenomenon nor an inevitable consequence of political pressure. Rather, it takes multiple forms that vary according to the degree of structural, functional, personal and cognitive proximity between analysts and decision-makers. The findings further suggest that proximity is not inherently detrimental and that analytical independence cannot be achieved through complete institutional separation. Instead, it depends on maintaining a professional balance that enables interaction with decision-makers while preserving critical judgment and independent assessment. By doing so, the study offers an analytical framework for understanding the relationship between intelligence and political authority and explains how different forms of politicisation emerge within contemporary institutional environments.
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter