Does the Policymaking Is the Preserve of Decision-Making Elites - Essay Example

 The inputs to the process are so diverse that it would be wrong to suggest that policy making is the preserve of decision-making elites. Introduction Policy is the foundation for a government to identify goals for the future and ambitions whilst also providing a framework by which these objectives can be carried out. Policy determines what a state performs and sets various limits on its behaviours and actions. Policy decisions are not static, meaning that they evolve with the needs and expectations of various societal stakeholders, in which bargaining occurs and accommodations made to reflect the special interests of citizens and special interest groups, hence giving policy a political essence. To suggest that public policy is a technical aspect of politics is insufficient, instead it should be viewed as a multi-faceted, interactive system that is directly influenced by social and political inputs that are highly diverse. For elite policy makers to promote only a singular agenda which is aligned with elitist perspectives would lead to backlash or outrage by other societal stakeholders (i.e. community citizens or special interest groups). Hence, to state that policy making is the preserve of elitist groups would be both irresponsible and impractical. This essay explores the notion of policy-making under an elitist agenda, offering case studies which refute the notion that bargaining, negotiation and accommodations cannot supersede an elitist agenda. An elitist agenda in policy making? Policy is a shared resource with many multi-faceted inputs influencing policy, including the responsibility to maintain social cohesion and responding to different systemic pressures that impact multiple societal stakeholders. Elite statesmen maintain the absolutely responsibility to incorporate conceptions of brotherhood, justice, social cohesion and ensuring the proper allocation of states’ resources to provide the most benefit to all society members that maintain a vested interest in policy-making outcomes. The idea that a single elitist group can create policy that preserves its own ideas and intended outcomes of policy does not take into consideration that maintaining unitary power in policy-making would be challenged by other societal stakeholders that have the ability to pressure or coerce policy outcomes. One can consider a policy-making situation in New Haven, Connecticut in which there were imbalanced power resources (such as wealth, knowledge and social standing) in a policy-making scenario. Even in an environment in which voters were apathetic and power resources were concentrated with the privileged and influential, city politicians considered demands imposed by activists to develop relevant public policy that would satisfy not only the agenda of the privileged politicians, but a broader group of stakeholders as well. This represents the notion of pluralism in policy-making that must respond to diverse needs and expectations which may not always be congruent with elitist agenda. Even though the argument stands that preserving the elite agenda is the primary objective in policy-making, it should also be recognised that there is often debate and struggle that occurs between elites (Mabbett 2010). Responsible policy-making involves an intensive acquisition of information, generating ideas, and also being interactive in promoting debate about how to develop and organise an efficient and relevant policy. Therefore, policy-making requires the talents of more than just a single, elitist group. To assume that solitary power that maintains the capability of benefitting only a single group is an irrational concept. In a society, elite resources are disparately allocated, including politicians and business leaders with considerable influence in economic matters and political matters. Hence, whilst the policy-makers, themselves, may have an agenda related to national protectionism from international threats, other elites in society (such as business leaders) may be concerned that policy will protect free market opportunities. In this case, disagreement occurs between elites that will ultimately shape policy in a method that is of advantage to politicians and elite business leaders; a type of accommodation and negotiation. To illustrate, Mabbett (2010) describes policy-making related to the creation of a Single European Market (SEM) which illustrates taking into consideration not only political elite agenda, but influential business leaders with a vested interest in European economic policy. The agenda of the elite European Union authorities were seeking to make Europe’s economy more competitive and proficient by removing barriers related to all economic transactions that occurred between different European countries (Mabbett 2010). This required different member nations to alter some of their long-standing practices and institutions in order to satisfy the agenda of policy making elites. This might have been unfavourable for those member states accustomed to more autonomy in national matters, however responsible policy-makers realised that consultation and bargaining with other member states was critical to make the European economy more competitive and lucrative. In the situation of the SEM, new practices and institutions in member states would not have been acceptable without ratification and consensus by individual member states that would be radically impacted by new policies related to economic transactions. Hence, again, the creation of the Single European Market required consensus under a pluralist ideology in order to be considered valid and just legislation that impacted not only elites, but many different stakeholders in society. It is likely that if the relevant European Union authorities attempting to make the economy more competitive through new policy development had not ensured consultation with individual member states and other stakeholders, uprising and contention would have plagued the ability to implement this particular economic-based policy. Policy makers in democratic nations attempt to appeal to the concept of balance of power as a method of ensuring public support. A true and just democratic system must maintain certain distinct features, which include freedom, equality, transparency and accountability in all policy-related decision-making. If a society does not maintain the ability to achieve consensus between stakeholders, there is little opportunity and likelihood that there will be peaceful resolution of politically-related differences that are part of every democratic process. Hence, inequality in policy-making that benefits a singular elite agenda means unequal participation in the democratic process. Citizens and other elites must participate in a balanced fashion as certain elite factional regimes that continue to negate the interests of a broader group of stakeholders can face violent protests or general contestation that will demand the policy be changed or utterly revoked. For instance, Mabbett (2010) again highlights that there was considerable and high-profile debate between the UK and other European Union members regarding policy formation related to the development of the SEM. The UK, maintaining a very strong economy during this period, grew concerned about the impact of opening a borderless EU marketplace on the UK currency and economic strength. The relevant EU authorities involved with policy related to the SEM were forced to negotiate with the UK in order to discuss policy elements that would address the UK’s inputs to the EU budget. Without exploring policy opportunities that would satisfy the UK, there was risk of further contention or perhaps denouncing its membership in the EU, which would have detrimental impact on all other member states. Therefore, it cannot be understated that bargaining, consultation, accommodation and negotiation occur as a result of responsible policy-making. Decisions related to policy have diverse inter-group dependencies which promote the need for interactions and discussion to occur between elites and other stakeholders in a nation or society. Elitist policy with a singular agenda designed to preserve the needs and wants of the privileged has, historically, let to revolt and uprising which was witnessed during the French Revolution where policy defied basic human welfare provisions. Elitist agendas underpinning policy-making, in today’s society with more media exposure (transparency) and stakeholders accustomed to power-sharing is impractical and will ultimately lead to conflict that will defy the relevancy of the policy once it is enacted if it does not satisfy diverse stakeholder expectations. Conclusions Whilst elite regimes do maintain significant influence in a nation, the diversity of economics, ensuring human welfare, and even corporatism defy the ability of elites to consider and enact policy that preserves their individual agendas. Elitism is a reality in a political system, however satisfying elitist agendas can no longer supersede human welfare for the lesser-privileged and cannot defy equality without considerable tension and contestation of the policy. Defying or ignoring the expectations and interests of a broader group of stakeholders would be detrimental to creating relevant policy that focuses on equality and justice. Especially true in developed countries, exercising elitist autonomy and domination within a policy-making context is not feasible as the division of labour, factors of production and technology favours the development of new policy interests that promote more authority to social groups. Elites, when present in a political system, can no longer repress the rights and power of social stakeholders (and other elites) when creating policy. Autocratic colonial rule in historical Britain, when attempted to be imposed on nations under British control, illustrates why elitist agendas in policy-making, when defying social groups’ interests, can lead to considerable conflict and even insurrection. It is, therefore, wrong to state that elitist agenda can supersede consideration and incorporation of other stakeholder needs and expectations in policy creation and, to do so, invalidating the relevancy of the policy and opening it up for considerable debate and challenge. References Mabbett, D. (2010). How is policy made? Walton Hall: Edinburgh University Press. Read More