We tend to use the term policy in everyday discussions, to reference decisions taken by Government or which we anticipate will be taken by Government. We might comment that based on Government’s policy a proposed project will or will not be approved. Policies formulated by Government or governmental agencies with the intent of affecting or influencing the conduct of citizens, generally are described as public policies. Clearly policies which are created and implemented to address defined problems, may be poorly implemented or have unintended and unforeseen consequences (Morse and Struyk, 2006). Usually the intended beneficiaries of the policy are the first persons to notice when policy objectives are not being achieved. Those who meet the cost of the implementation of the relevant public policy are likely to be the next persons to notice deficiencies in policies. This group covers a broad cross section of any community, as taxpayers are the persons who ultimately meet the cost of the policy. These citizens (individual and corporate) are generally concerned about the outcomes of a policy and the costs associated with achieving those outcomes and will judge the success of a policy accordingly. Governments are expected to devise systems which afford citizens the opportunity to offer feed back on policies. While citizens should take full advantage of these systems we must in addition initiate ways to convince government that a policy is not working or that a policy is needed.
I will consider the capacity of citizens to influence the formulation of policy, by examining some mechanisms which may be utilised by citizens to influence policy formulation or change.
Changes in public policy generally come about as a result of citizens’ demands for change. Change is therefore a bottom up process as individuals and groups drive innovation and learning (Reinicke, 1999-2000). It is generally accepted that citizens communicate their desire for change through their vote at election time. Citizens also have a voice between elections. They are able to utilise advocacy, policy networks and more recently deliberative democracy techniques to influence policy change. While we in Anguilla might not consciously think of our activities in the context of advocacy, policy networks and deliberative democracy it would be instructive for us to contemplate whether our activities can in fact be accurately described in such terms.
Reference will also be made to the role litigation can play in influencing policy formulation, followed by a brief examination of government initiatives which allow citizens to influence policy change. I will conclude by highlighting an art form whose role in the formulation of policy is not always given the prominence it deserves.
Advocacy is described as a strategy to influence policy makers when they are making laws, distributing resources and generally making decisions that affect peoples’ lives. The principal aims of advocacy are to create policies, reform policies and ensure policies are implemented. Examples of this abound in the international context; Advocacy is utilised by CARE Action Network (CAN), an international organisation which works to educate national leaders about global poverty issues. Elected officials are asked to adopt policies pertaining to gender inequality and poor governance which address the underlying causes of poverty. As part of CAN, citizens gain a greater understanding of the effects of US policies on global poverty and are able to raise awareness of global poverty issues with their leaders, the media and the public. The advocacy strategies utilised include discussing problems directly with decision makers, using the media to deliver messages and strengthening the ability of local organisations to advocate.
Clearly at the international level advocacy is alive and thriving. Is advocacy alive in this region? Tourism, we will accept, is the engine that drives the economy of many countries in this region. Is there an organised effort to promote tourism in the region? The Caribbean Hotel & Tourism Association (CHTA) is considered to be the advocate for tourism in the region. Operating on the premise that there is insufficient awareness and understanding of the contribution the tourist industry makes to Caribbean countries, the CHTA uses advocacy to raise awareness of public officials, communities and industry partners about tourism’s role in and contribution to economic sustainability in the region. The CHTA believes that given the tremendous impact of the tourism industry on the lives of Caribbean people, it is its obligation to actively lobby the relevant regional agencies and institutions, to ensure that the concerns of the tourism sector are at the forefront of their decision making processes.
Clearly advocacy is being utilised at a regional level. The question remains – What of Anguilla? Are we engaged in initiatives in Anguilla which can properly be described as advocacy geared towards influencing policy development or policy change? Do our various radio talk shows qualify? Are the various groupings, those that are continually in existence and those that periodically come to the fore and then fade away, carrying out the role of advocacy? If we conclude that our initiatives to date are only budding attempts at advocacy can we say that we are investing time and resources into learning how to engage in effective advocacy?
To ensure effective advocacy there is the need to clearly define the problem being addressed through adequate research. Reports, surveys, personal observations and other resources that accurately describe the problem to be addressed must be collected. Do those who attempt advocacy in Anguilla engage in adequate research? We must in all our activities remain conscious that if policy recommendations are to have any chance of being codified, advocates must be prepared with facts, clearly describing the problem and helping community members grasp how serious it is.
If advocacy is to be successful, policy goals must be established and the organisation proposing to engage in advocacy must assess its ability to undertake a campaign. This is complemented by an assessment of the resources available in the community. Who are the individuals or groups in the community affected by the problem and why would they support the campaign? We must be conscious that it is those affected that usually form interest groups and professional associations and engage in advocacy. It is of course also useful to remember that even when advocacy efforts do not succeed in bringing about the desired policy change, the advocacy process may contribute to the strengthening of civil society, by building NGO and community capacity and raising the level of public awareness and debate (Miller 1994).
Though elected officials must accept ultimate responsibility for the policies, which are created, very rarely is policy made with input only from local politicians or their advisers. Usually policy ideas, research results and experiments with policy instruments are available to people involved in policy making in their own jurisdiction and across national boundaries. These ideas are available through what are described as policy networks. The basic idea underlying policy networks is that surrounding each policy area is a host of interest groups, professional associations, scientists, activists and so on, all of whom have something to say about the policy. Reinike (1999-2000) opines that global public policy networks narrow the participatory gap and promote democracy by giving once ignored civil society groups a greater voice. Such groups comprise likeminded individuals.
The Caribbean Regional Agricultural policy Network (CaRAPN), which seeks to support the agriculture policy process in the Caribbean is an example of a regional policy network. In July 2003 a number of regional stakeholders met in Trinidad and made the call for an integrated and harmonised regional policy framework towards the reduction of food importation into CARICOM countries. Clearly promoting agriculture and reducing our dependency on international imports is a policy issue that is common to the territories in the region. The pooling of the ideas and resources of likeminded stakeholders should serve to facilitate the achievement of this goal in a much more efficient and effective manner than if each country sought to engage in individual and discrete policy initiatives.
The point is further made in the international arena by an examination of tobacco policies. Policies on tobacco control demonstrate that in an inter-connected world, only the most trivial of policies will be formulated without reference to experience elsewhere. A common repertoire of policy instruments for tobacco control exists across the globe. The efforts of NGOs and intergovernmental organisations in various countries on tobacco control are now reflected at the international level in the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). This demonstrates that initiatives at the bottom result in changes at the top.
Anguillians clearly desire to exercise influence beyond our shores and we must therefore visualise ourselves as being able to influence global issues through policy networks if we are to be players in the global landscape. We must also recognise that our policies can benefit from information available through policy networks. We must consciously avail ourselves of such.
Deliberative democracy allows citizens a greater voice in governance by including people of all backgrounds in deliberations that directly affect public decisions. Citizens by this means can influence and can see the result of their influence on policy and resource decisions that have the potential to impact their daily lives and their future.
Two examples are CaliforniaSpeaks on Health Care Reform and Citizens Parliament in Australia, convened to consider ways of improving the governmental system, as examined by John Folk-Williams (2009) in his work entitled Deliberating to Change Public Policy. Each example facilitates face-to-face gatherings rather than limiting interaction to written exchanges.
Both examples created effective deliberative experiences for the citizens who participated and generated a sense of empowerment as well as enthusiasm about public policy and the political process. Regrettably, despite the Parliament itself being highly praised for its success as a deliberative experience, the official reaction to the Australian Citizens Parliament was merely a brief letter of acknowledgement from the Prime Minister. In the case of CaliforniaSpeaks, while expressing general acclaim for the meaningful involvement of the public it was determined by legislators that the timing was late as they had already formed opinions about health care reform and the citizens preferences could not therefore “fit into the context of local political negotiations.” It appeared that interest groups, professional associations and advocates were able to influence the policy debate to a greater extent, than the ordinary citizens who engaged in deliberative democracy.
The concept of deliberative democracy has been the subject of consideration in Jamaica. Mr Robert Buddan considered the subject in an article published in the Jamaica Gleaner on 22 June 2003. He opined that “deliberative democracy means organising regular meetings of the people to debate and deliberate over issues of community or national importance. It gives the people a chance to be informed and consider, in a structured setting, issues that representatives should take into account as they make law and policy.” He further observed that “the town hall meeting is the best known setting for or analogy of this.”
Have we in Anguilla sought to utilise deliberative democracy in a structured manner to influence public policy? The Anguilla National Youth Council has annually for the past four years sought to influence policy through a process culminating in deliberative democracy. Areas of concern are identified by polling young persons; papers are commissioned on the identified areas; research is carried out and papers are delivered to an audience which includes those who are well placed to influence policy makers; resolutions and recommendations are made; and a forum is organised where these resolutions and recommendations are formally presented to elected and appointed government officials in an atmosphere which facilitates deliberation among all stakeholders. This is a fine example of deliberative democracy at work and can serve as an example for others who venture into this realm.
Having recognised that advocate groups, which usually comprise of professional organisations and interest groups, have well established methods for influencing public policy, deliberative democracy seeks to create new channels of access for ordinary citizens to influence policy change. It is hoped that the credibility of proposals reached through the relatively disinterested deliberation of citizens with no professional stake in the outcome would be recognised.
Anguilla, some say, is becoming a very litigious society. Can litigation be of value to a community? Citizens can indeed highlight their desire for policy change through litigation. Selective litigation by individuals particularly in the United States, against tobacco manufacturers has influenced tobacco control policies. Litigation in the US has resulted in the release of tobacco industry documents through the discovery process and information from tobacco company files has become widely available to policy makers internationally, thus facilitating policy diffusion and transfer.
Experience has taught us that sometimes issues of national interest are only resolved when our judicial system is invited to intervene. Such intervention can result in policy changes or can provide information which informs the policy development or change process.
Policies which are properly implemented usually seek to ensure that citizens are afforded opportunities to influence further policy change. On these occasions citizens are invited to comment on the effectiveness and efficiency of policies, when participating in government initiated mechanisms such as performance management, monitoring and evaluation.
Performance management is a system which regularly measures the results or outcomes of a programme and then seeks to use the information to improve service delivery (Ritu Nayyar-Stone et al., 2002). It facilitates the informed implementation of changes, designed to improve services which are expected to enhance the quality of life of citizens (Morse and Struyk, 2006). Citizens help to prioritize policies pertaining to services and investments based on their preferences and feedback.
Identifying data sources and collecting data is critical to the involvement of citizens in convincing a government that a particular policy is not working or that a new policy is desired. Primary data sources for measuring the performance of a programme include customer or citizen surveys and user surveys. Citizens should not hesitate to participate in these exercises and can use publicised information which does not demonstrate sufficient improvements in a programme to demand the creation and implementation of an action plan for policy change and implementation.
Monitoring is the routine measurement and reporting of the operations and results of policies and helps to assess whether policies are successful (Morse and Struyk, 2006)). The monitoring process is carried out by collecting data from citizens who have been targeted by the policy. Data collected will help policy makers determine whether a policy is efficiently and effectively serving its target audience.
Citizens should avail themselves of opportunities to provide honest and detailed responses to allow an informed examination of the performance and costs of programmes implemented as a result of governmental policies.
Evaluations of policies provide an in-depth examination of particular issues or concerns (Morse and Struyk, 2006) identified during the monitoring process. When evaluation results are publicised public pressure to implement recommended changes is created.
Clearly there are occasions when governmental initiatives afford citizens an opportunity to influence policy. The question remains – Are such governmental initiatives prevalent in Anguilla? Are public policies regularly and systematically subjected to performance management, monitoring and evaluation? If the answer is not in the affirmative, citizens in an effort to influence public policy must place greater reliance on initiatives such as advocacy.
Citizens have many opportunities to seek to convince a government that a policy is not working. As noted, existing policies if implemented properly will themselves provide opportunities for citizens to influence changes to them, through monitoring, evaluation and performance management tools. Citizens can also through advocacy, policy networks, litigation and deliberative democracy influence governments to change policies.
We should however not be constrained to use only mechanisms to effect policy change which have an international flavour or some semblance of formality. For example – Is calypso one of the mechanisms available to us here in the Caribbean, to effect policy change? Colville Petty while eulogising our very own Lord Anything, under the caption ‘the Voice of the Voiceless’, in the Anguillian of 4th December 2006 commented that “Lord Anything was the voice of the voiceless who were too afraid to speak out.” He observed that “at times Anguillians are unhappy with certain policies of Government but refuse to voice their dissatisfaction – too afraid to offend the powers that be.” Such fear it was noted did not bother Lord Anything.
The highest tribute was paid to Lord Anything when Mr Petty observed that Lord Anything used the calypso art form “to cry out for help for the poor and less fortunate, and to demand accountability, openness and transparency in government.” It was observed that Lord Anything also used the art form to educate.
None of us will dispute the power of a calypso to convey the feelings of the masses and I therefore reiterate that while we should be ready to utilise and improve on mechanisms which are more readily recognised by and/or originate in the international arena we should not underemphasise that which comes more naturally to us and has the potential of reaching a far wider and more relevant audience.
The Anguillian newspaper - 4 December 2006
R. Buddan (2003), A new time for democracy, Jamaica Gleaner (22 June).
http://www.care.org/getinvolved/advocacy/index.asp
John Folk-Williams (2009), Deliberating to Change Public Policy.
Latin America and the Caribbean Workshop on the UNDP Evaluation Policy (17-19 January, 2007), ‘UNDP Evaluation Policy and Implications for the Way UNDP Works’.
V. Miller (1994), NGO and grassroots policy influence: What is success? IDR Reports 11(5). Institute for Development Research, Boston, Massachusetts.
K. Morse and R.J. Struyk (2006), Policy Analysis for Effective Development: Strengthening Transition Economies, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12.
Ritu Nayyar-Stone, Katharine Mark, Jacob Cowan, and Harry Hatry, ‘Developing a Performance Management System for Local Governments: An Operational Guideline,’ a report prepared for UN Habitat and the World Bank (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, July 2002).
W. H. Reinicke (1999-2000), The Other World Wide Web: Global Public Policy Networks, Foreign Policy 117: 44-57.
D. Studlar (2006), Tobacco Control Policy instruments in a Shrinking World: How Much Policy Learning? International Journal of Public Administration, 29: 367-396.
HM Treasury (2004), The Magenta Book: guidance notes for policy evaluation and analysis.
HTML last revised 24th May, 2012.
Return to Conference papers.