About Policy And Politics That Have a Strong and Often Contentious Sense

The definition of policy and politics in our ever-changing world appears to have a strong and often contentious sense. Throughout their daily lives, people see politics as a necessary evil and mostly forget the strategy behind the politics. In some cases, and more than most of us would like to believe, we are mixing the world of policy and politics and blurring the lines of what they really are and are.

“Politics” is a word that has been derived from the Greek word “politikos” meaning “an official” which has been modeled on “Affairs of the City” by Aristotle. “Policy” is a term that has been derived from the Old French word “policie,” from Late Latin “politia” and ancient Greek “politeia.”

Politics, as many of us know, is the part of our system of government where men and women fight in their respective districts for the approval and votes of the country or constituents. On the other hand, strategy is what the elected politicians, analysts, and managers are supposed to accomplish as part of their jobs on a daily basis. At this point, the world of politics and political science diverges but most people do not see this difference and will not see it. The field of policy is a complex world of studying, writing, debating and hoping to reach some sort of consensus on a particular issue. In the most general terms, the realm of government helps to create and write legislation that is voted on by parliaments, congresses, and other elected bodies during their chosen terms. Politics is the part that muddles through the policy and tries to decide what’s right for the people and they’re a way of testing and managing the policy that’s generated every day. Political scientists are researching the man-made political structures and the mechanisms that operate toward developing the legislation that will one day become law.

Policymakers are continually struggling to reconcile law and governance— to square their authority withwhat consent means. Academicresearch and the teachingof publicpolicy historically separatedpolicy argumentfrom politicalanalysis. Several academics are suggesting solutions to public issues while others are studying real policy politics.

Politicsis a part of the structure of governmentand one strategy canbecalled a program. Politics can be described as a scienceor artor government, especially governing a nation-likepolitical entity. A strategycan bedefined as a general plan which encompasses the overall objectives. A policy is also a course of actionproposedby a government, an organization, a corporation or any other entity. Politics is about wealth, and people’s lives. Politics usually revolves around policies and their behaviour. Politics is a concept which refersto theorganizational phase. It also makes reference to Governance theory and practice.

It can be thought of as a theory of strategy. Political parties do not follow such policies, but there are policies that almost everyone has. A lot of businesses stick to certain policies. An arrangement or declaration of intent could also be called a strategy. It’s because of the policy that account is owned by people, an organization, or a company. A policyis a set ofrules orconcepts regulating decision-making.

The Separation of Policy and Politics:

Publicpolicy as an academicfield emerged in the 1960s owing to widespread unhappiness with government efficiency, particularly atthe nationallevel. Nonetheless, as they have evolved, these structures seldom teach statecraft as practiced byoffice holders, with constant political and political tensions. However, researchandteaching are largelyseparate within thetwosubjects. Policyanalysis, orthe studyof whatgovernment shoulddo about publicissues, is mostly carried out and taughtby economists; microeconomicsand statisticsare the subjects here. The firstparty is mainly focused on economics, the second mainly on politics and noneof them saysmuch about theother. Interestingly, though, economicsadvises society whatto do whileavoiding it, while politicalscience focuses on policy but is not going to tell it what to do.

Which side provides assumptions which effectively rule out the othersubject. When explaining the policyargument, economists frequently make the statement ‘Model 1,’ the notion that governmentconsists of asingle decision-maker and thusremoves the democratic constraint. Then the problem with that leader is only one of choice, rather than power. On their part, the political scientists usually oppose authority to say what policy should be. To do so would be to second-guess the political democratic process they do not. So they often believe that the result of a democraticprocess is bydefinition appropriate, rather than looking for politics outside of politics. Every discipline recognizes the need for another throughout the course of action. Economists, having dominated the earlycurricula of political schools,came to realize the need for more classes in policy and execution, because in the real world these subjects were so significant. But philosophy also takes a different approach to politics and government, and is generally taught by various scholars.

Some will say that the study into politics and the political analysis is not really special. The texts of public policy do not cover both? Sure, general policy texts say something about both subjects, but depending on authorship the relative focus varies considerably. Economist-written articles focus primarily on how to modify policies using methods such as cost-benefitanalysis or program evaluation. The policy structure is considered secondary and depends on other economicconcepts, such as rational choice or theArrow principle. Conversely, published texts by political scientists generally describe policy changes inareas such aseconomic management, education orsocial welfare.

Separating between politics and business weakens the influence ofpublic policy. There areoften stillborn explanations forbestpolicy neglecting institutionalconstraints: either the Congress overlooks them or the bureaucracy does not enforce them. This, for example, wasthefate of the early welfare reform proposals introduced by economists in the1960s and1970s. These planswill guarantee a minimum income for all vulnerable people. Nevertheless, Congress concentrated insteadon getting welfarerecipients towork andthat was the aim that influenced welfare reform in the1980s and1990s. One explanation that manyeconomists rejected implementing welfare work was because they didn’t appreciate how popular that was and they didn’t know much about how work programs worked.

Similarly, policyresearch lacks a broadaudience, because ittypically doesnot argue in favor of bestpolicy. Political analyzes of the subjects will be of interest to few other than theoretical experts unless they are connected to someserious proposal for change. Onlythen are policyand politics combined in the manner required by successfulstatecraft. Andthen the researchersits in the sameseat as thepolicy-maker, trying toreconcile the ideal to thereal.

Policy and Politics: A Combined Approach:

The earlier policy / administration dichotomy debate places heavy emphasis on the fact that politics can not be isolated from government. What public policy is or is not, it can be further argued that public policy is the center of government and may be affected positively or negatively depending on the actors involved. It takes us to a discussion about actors in the country. These are the executive, the legislature, the courts, the leaders, the interest groups and the politicians among others. What this section aims to highlight is that politics communicates through the actors with the policy structures.

A hybridapproach to publicpolicy research andteaching would be far healthier, putting together policy and policy. Firstly, academics need to decide how to answer a public issue ‘on the merits,’ that is, on the theoretical basis of policy and without political compromises. We should then continue addressing impediments that may arise from the legislative or administrative process, and how they could be handled. In fact, they should predict the friction that politicians would face between political argument and politics if they backed up with such policies at the office.

Initially, someone argues for a favorable course of action on the merits when deciding the law without paying attention to the legislation. And then, one should continue to consider whether the political system would accept such a policy and obey it. These factors start as elements of abstract policy reasons for or against different options but create a different viewpoint as well. If government can not ‘do the right thing,’ as is often the case, this could mean changing the democratic process to change the results.

For example, improvements in the legislative process were needed— all too briefly— to balance the budget achieved in the late 1990s. Political disagreements in the 1980s made it hard to reach agreement on spend cuts or tax increases to reduce the deficit. But because strong public pressure was exerted to minimize red ink, the parties finally agreed on procedures that required, at least, improved budget and revenue coordination. Under the 1990 Budget Control Act, discretionary spending caps were imposed, and adjustments to pension or tax increases were made so that the deficit did not expand. Here, the political analysis offers reasons for policy change.

The welfare reform, for example, focused on putting welfare mothers to work with studies that found government could do this. One aim that change might have had— the restoration of marriage so that women might lead less households — was underlined because it was much less common than educational coercion, and there were no steps that could achieve this. Rhetorically, welfare reformers have championed marriage as the solution to poverty but have made no concrete attempt to enforce it as they have done. Though it was beyond marriage, the government could cope with the work’s purpose.

Academically, it may seem like ships passing by at night to focus on policy and political research. Yet they are as closely tied as sisters in actual governing practice. To claim that a policy argument is good or not, or that politics supports one or the other alternative, is too easy. There is no vital interaction either with the person studied in solitary confinement. Policy argument and actual policy aren’t distinct but merged into a high-level analysis of the mechanism. Governments keep trying different ways to do things to see what works but also what fails in the face of any serious issue. Whatever they do, they must be justifiable in their merits but they must also be convincing towards others. Statecraft needs all goals to be achieved by policy.

Another way to put this down is that policies are not actually selected from the institutions in isolation, as conventional policy analysis suggests. Instead, they’re better off building solutions and plans together. Initiatives need a persuasive argument and must be rooted in a supportive legislative and administrative system to be successful (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009). Selecting a new policy is also one that chooses a structure for that strategy, and maybe others. This especially applies to major structural changes. Changes in institutional structure or intergovernmental relations, for instance, may affect policy in several ways. The process is called Metapolicymaking.

Within the government process, the political party is another political actor. The political party articulates the desires and expectations of the people into the political process, particularly those of its members and supporters. The party is also using its resources to make sure its members ‘ demands are converted into policies. Political parties often exert considerable influence through their representatives in public office in the implementation of public policies, particularly when they are in charge of the government apparatus. We exert this power by making sure that their manifestos, plans and initiatives are put into practice.

Models Depicting Relationship between Politics and Public Policy:

David Easton’s System Analysis:

For comparative policy research the term ‘political system’ is becoming commonly used. Different policy experts have differing views on creating a political system. David Easton says, ‘Political system is an authoritative application of values, but before going into the comprehensive description of the political system, you have to think about’ political and structure.’ The word government in its literal meanings is that any activity relates to the study of politics.

The word system, ‘implies the interdependence of parts and some kind of boundary between them and their environment,’ further he says, ‘By interdependence we mean that if the properties of one component in a system alter all the other components and the system as a whole are affected.’

In this way it has become easier to understand the idea of a political system ‘Broadly the hierarchical framework of a society, including all factors affecting collective decisions, therefore the political system requires the recruitment and socialization of organisations, parties, individuals and social movements, which are not formally part of government.’ The political system consists of different structures and roles, and structures officially ensure that the functions of processes and development reflect demand fulfillment and growth promotion while demands and innovations vary.

The political system is a biological phenomenon that exists in a mechanized version of the human organism. The blood is pumped through the heart to the entire body’s organs. Both body organs perform various duties. If any body organ fails to receive the blood properly or stop carrying out its function, the entire body system would be disrupted. Similarly, there are different systems and responsibilities in the political system and each structure has its own sub-system to execute which is assigned specific functions, and authoritative positions can be allocated. The political system exists only in a country, which is the only body whose authority is decided.

The whole political system is built for the benefit of society and underlines the advancement of the people. Demand quantum is deeply concerned with the development of the political system. If the demands are greater than the capacity, the political system will become inefficient, and the political system will show upward progress if the demands are equal to or lower than the ability. This process of transformation is called formation. Every political system consists of the infrastructures (input) and ultra-structure (output).

Gabriel Almond’s Structural Functional Analysis:

Almond’s model is popularly known as structural functionalism among political science students. It’s so-called because Almond has clarified his views that hold these political system frameworks in mind. In addition, he has emphasized that every political system has certain structures, and that these structures perform certain functions that are intended for it.

Almond has drawn our attention to an interesting question in his noted work The Politics of the Developing Areas. He says that although there are variations as regards structures between developed and developing countries, the systems serve essentially similar functions. Whose type is it? The term structure here is used in a different sense from the sociological sense. Structure means bodies. Every political system has various institutions such as political parties, legislatures, executives, judiciaries, etc. Almond says all of these have been named institutions before. But that nomenclature has changed.

The main goal of Almond was to make a comparative study of the major political systems, and for that reason what he did ultimately became the foundation of general systems theory / analysis. For purposes of contrast, Gabriel Almond separated the positions of the political system into two specific category-input functions and output functions. Easton and Almond borrowed the terms — economic input and output to explore the roles and behavior of the political systems and their different frameworks. This approach contributes significantly towards comparison.

While concentrating our attention on these two types of functions performed by political systems, we should note that input functions are generally performed by NGOs and organizations such as lobbies, interest groups, parties, educational institutions. The Government has little role to play in input functions. While performing the input activities, the entities have little scope to infringe common law and existing legal and constitutional structure. If the organizations consider the idea of changing the existing structure, however, they can do otherwise

Conclusion:

It should be noted that by means of policies society is regulated, guided and directed by the state towards desired ends. Politics thus becomes the focus, the method and the means of governance. Let us recall again that politics is seen as the authoritative distribution of values, such as deciding who gets what, when and how, while Ikelegbe describes politics as governmental acts or course of actions or proposed actions or course of actions aimed at achieving certain objectives.

It is the people–the voters, a group of people, the politicians, the legislative body, or even the executive–that will come up with policy demands at the point of realizing that there is a problem to be solved. A lot of politics are involved from the point of issue understanding to the level of policy acceptance. If the demands are made on the government on certain issues, it may not be on the agenda if it is not translated into political question. The stage of the agenda is that point in which government is ruminating on environmental demands. This is always a political process in which factions battle to be in control of power. The implementation stage is very critical after policy adoption, and involves a lot of politics. Note, there’s no way a program can be successfully implemented without sufficient staff resources and availability. Funds allocation, facilities, and staffing is financial. If the government isn’t in favor of the program, it can frustrate it by refusing to provide sufficient provision for its implementation.