Policy making in the public domain is not centralised but diffused over a diverse area giving powers to various functionaries as policy makers. They are all state actors of varying capacity and political weight but it is not uncommon to co-opt non-state actors to supplement the process as subject-matter specialists. However, the ownership and agency always remain with concerned state actors and it is they who are held accountable for policies made.
Policy making in the public domain are exercises in application of political power by those authorised by the public through election. As has been said in a different context that all politics are local, similarly all policies are political in nature, policy making being defined as promotion of public interests. The raison d'etre of a government is improving public welfare, be it through passing laws, making regulations or taking concrete actions. Appropriate policy making and good governance are thus inseparable.
Policy making becomes necessary when a political party is elected to govern on the basis of existing laws and regulations and programmes with new ones added in compliance with commitments made before election. In the former case the incumbent government has only to maintain continuity but in case of the latter it is mandated by the electorate to make new legislation and undertake new programmes of socio-economic nature. New laws and programmes become necessary because of changing circumstances. With changes taking place in society, economy and polity policy making in response becomes almost a continuous process. In this sense governance is always through policies, old and new, based on laws and programmes. Politicians to be successful in governance have to be consummate policy makers. Some of the policies may be very technical in nature, as in climate change, but politicians' competence does not rest on technical knowledge involved in policy making but in desiring the outcome about which common sense knowledge is enough. Otherwise, a government would have to consist of only subject-matter specialists or technocrats as ministers.
One of the seductive terms of policy is 'policy makers'. It has a clear ring to it, and conveys an impression of a known group of purposeful decision-makers. But the 'policy makers' may not be on their own, as has been pointed out earlier, but depend on others like permanent bureaucrats or transient consultants for the policy making process. When these intermediaries point out the costs and benefits of various options in the policy process, the de jure policy makers have to decide about the outcome desired from the policy. It is this calculation of costs and benefits made in the process of policy making that creates a divergence between commitments made to electorate before election and the actual policy formulated to fulfill those. Determined politicians may decide to stick to the commitments made and may opt for a policy that is not cost-effective, thus overriding the subordinates who delineate the various options with their costs and benefits. Like efficient market theory, pragmatic policy making may thus often become illusory. The result is immediate benefit to the public as promised to them but gradual erosion of their welfare in future when the chickens come home to roost. Politicians, often having short-run goals (popularity during their tenure) may ignore writing on the wall, but ultimately pay back time arrives to stare them in the face.
A case study in short-lived policy is expediency in legislation. A political party coming to power through election by virtue of majority votes may amend a law that is not to its liking on political grounds and pass a new law replacing it. If the party is voted out of power next time around, the new law is destined to go in oblivion before long. The weakest example of policy making is passing a law that is self-serving for a party. Laws derive their authority from the constitution and every politically motivated law being egregious in nature erodes the constitution which weakens the state. If this practice goes on in the merry-go-round, that politics in democracy can become, the ultimate result is a failed state floundering in a welter of political expediency. Laws are not only sacred but much too potent an instrument of governance to be trifled with. Unfortunately, in policy making through laws there is not much room for outside experts to flag the red lines and to explicate the implications. Amendments in laws and in constitutions may be necessary in consonance with changing times but too many amendments in constitutions and plethora of new laws may not augur well for good governance.
Policies whose remit are within the jurisdiction of a ministry can and are often made by the ministry concerned, though consultation with other ministries which are affected by these are often made. In this case ministers and their bureaucrats as assistants are enough for policy making. But there are some policies that need the agreement of all ministries and for these approval of cabinet is sought. Instead of a particular ministry, the whole cabinet as a collective exercises the power of policy making. It is assumed that such policy making is in the greater interest of the public and the government knows it best, representing, as it does, the public as a whole. But in democracy where partisan politics reigns supreme with rare bi-partisan consensus the public perceived by the government is not a monolith but a segment of the whole. If cabinet decisions are put up before parliament there is a chance that the government will modify a policy after taking into account the comments and suggestions from the opposition. This may make policy making by the cabinet rather a lengthy process but would be more democratic. The sole example where a policy is placed by ministry before parliament bypassing the cabinet is the annual budget. Before that it engages with various consultative bodies (business groups, economists and special interest groups) for suggestions and comments. Budget or fiscal policy of a government is the most democratic process of policy making as it is participatory and inclusionary. Of course, the ministry of finance is not obligated to accommodate all suggestions for changes and goes by its (government's) political and economic compulsions. But the public consultation before finalising the fiscal policy is not a charade and some changes are made. It would be ideal if all major policies were made following the example of budget.
