Tag: public policy

Judicialization of Executive decisions -A Threat to Democracy

                                                                    (Photo: Science ABC)

It is true to say that, “Judicialization of executive decisions is dangerous for democracy”. Judicialization is the growing involvement of judges in assessing the executive prerogatives and performance and the reliance on courts for addressing core public policy questions and political controversies.

 Judicialization occurs in parliamentary democracies when a high degree of party competition in legislature invites challenges from judiciary because these systems produce weak coalitions. In 1950s and 60s, the political elite passed the decision-making burden to the court because they wanted an umpire. Successive governments expanded the court jurisdiction over administrative tribunals and the court seized more powers of judicial review. In the last decade, the main driver of judicial involvement in executive decisions is pressure from civil society actors. The relationship between courts and political considerations in India’s parliamentary system is less coherent.

 When the political actor is strong (single-party majority), prepared to take on courts and has a policy agenda, SC is more constrained. This occurred during Indira Gandhi’s time. If the political actor is strong, but not prepared to strike at the courts autonomy (Nehru’s time), or if there is a weak coalition (post-1988), the judiciary has more room to manoeuvre. Today, within the space given by structural conditions, higher judiciary is trying to balance constraints imposed by institutional realities with demands for judicial action from societal actors. Judiciary’s intervention has had positive as well as negative effect. On the positive side, it has knitted alliances with political parties, citizen groups, activists and the media to keep an eye on the administration. On the negative side, the danger remains of collision between judiciary and other organs of state, which is against the principles of constitution and democracy. A bigger concern is the habit developed by higher judiciary of monitoring implementation of orders.

Judiciary interference should only be when required and should not be made as a permanent thing. It contains the principles of democracy as the three wings are different and has their own jurisdictions. Thus, it can be said that judicialization of executive decision is dangerous for democracy.

 

Models of Public Policy

The idea of models that provide a discourse of analysis came into use in the 1970s and 1980s. They were thought as modes of organizing problems and giving them a form and coherence. A model essentially involves the notion of constructing a boundary around reality which is held common and while studying public policy, it is important to note how these models clash and shift around and solve problems.

SYSTEMS MODEL FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

The systems model is associated with David Easton, who defines the political system as that part of the society which is engaged in authoritative allocation of resources. He regards the policy process as a black box and thus this model is also called ‘the Estonian black box model’. The political system for Easton consists of inputs, environments, policy making process, output and feedback.

INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

This approach focuses on the relationship between public policy and government institutions as policy making majorly depends on the interactions of institutions created by the government. One such institution is the state which is a web of government structures and institutions. It performs various functions like adjudicating between conflicting social and economic interests, guarding the interests of all the sections of the society by accommodating and reconciling them. It also includes the legislatures, executive, bureaucracy, etc.

RATIONAL POLICY MAKING MODEL

Rationality is considered to be the ‘yardstick’ in policy making and this approach emphasizes that policy making is making a choice among policy alternatives on rational ground. In other words, rational policy making means to ‘choose the best option’. A rational policy is designed to maximize net value achievement. This model is associated with Herbert Simon.

LINDBLOM’S INCREMENTAL APPROACH

This model is associated with Charles Lindblom who proposed it as an alternative to the rational model of policy making. His incremental approach, majorly focused upon in his ‘science of muddling through’ involves a process of continually building out from the current situation, step by step and in small degrees. This is the branch approach which is the basis of his approach and is in contrast to the root approach of the rational model wherein the policy makers start anew each time, building on the past experiences. Lindblom rejected the root approach because he believed that constraints on time, intelligence, and cost prevent policy makers from identifying all the alternatives and consequences. Rather, he suggested that successive limited comparison is both more relevant and more realistic in a condition of ‘bounded rationality’.

DROR’S NORMATIVE OPTIMUM MODEL

Dror’s model was an alternative to incrementalism for he believed that incrementalism increased the gap between those who had more power and those who had less power which made it difficult for the latter to bring about change. Thus, as an alternative to this, he proposed a model which seeks to accept the need for rationality, management techniques for enhancing rationality of decision making at low levels, policy science approach for dealing with complex problems and the need to take account of values and irrational elements in decision making.

These models as discussed above, emphasize public policy as an important area of politics and public management and can be understood in terms of policy analysis and through political public policy. Therefore, policy making is a mixture of all these models combined to form a crucial aspect of the political system.