Influence of Government Type on Policy Making

Influence of Government Type on Policy Making When a country has a democratic government, the process of implementing a law is extremely tedious compared to a monarchy.  In a monarchy,  the rulers word is law, and that law is enacted precisely when the ruler says it is, saving a great deal of time and work. However, the trade-off  is necessary,  especially in complex policy issues,  such as  foreign policy,  that relate  to war. When  entering conflict with  a  foreign nation,  it’s crucial for the survival of a nation. War is an extremely costly operation, one  that can cause substantial  financial damage to  a  nation. A democratic political system,  such as  in  the USA,  specifically prevents a nation  from  entering wars  for any defensive  or offensive  purpose  that is not publicly approved, because a mistake in such decision will impact the survival of a  nation. Even though there is a loss of efficiency, it ensures the survival of a nation. However, the main reason why extensive checks on policy is necessary,  is because we humans suffer from our own psychological bias.  In the book The Nudge, the author describes  Ã¢â‚¬Å"we human  can be manipulated by savvy architects of choice â€Å".  Referencing  that we human,  and  politicians  of course,  will sometimes makes incorrect decision or irrational decision based  on  psychological manipulation. A check and balance system  extensively  prevents that from happening in our government.  By making single sided and quick decisions virtually impossible from our policy making process. Despite the obvious loss  of  efficiency, this trade-off of speed for balance is essential. The framers of the American constitution knew well the results of absolute rule  and structured the nation they founded very specifically to avoid such tyranny. A somewhat clunky government is the unavoidable price of a multi-faceted government. In turn, public participation is encouraged under such a system, as people are made to feel that their efforts can make a difference, as opposed to the sense that a distant and unconcerned  monarch  will simply do as he  or she  likes regardless of public opinion and action. Using the United States as an example, the  president, head of the executive branch of government and holder of the ostensive title of â€Å"head of state,†Ã‚  has virtually no power to draft new legislation. In fact, his (or her) authority in this matter is entirely limited to effectively asking nicely for  Congress (which constitutes the legislative branch) to introduce the desired law. Political allies in the House of Representatives will certainly comply, but their opponents are sure to question and criticize the new law to within an inch of its life, insisting on amendments and modifications if they allow it to move forward at all. Assuming some agreement – often  taking a long time to  reach  and achieved only after the requisite rounds of political scheming and posturing – can be reached, essentially the entire process must be repeated in the Senate, where the unique balance of  senators may bring the bills future into question yet again. We can see that by allowing discussion and exchange between  the  Senate and  House,  the public participation in the political matter increases  as well. As each citizen  recognizes  that we elected our own policy makers,  every citizen makes a difference,  as opposed  to a monarch,  who often distances  him  or herself from the public when making public policy,  thus discouraging  public participation. One way to allow the public participation is  allowing public to form  special interest group to maintain their position in the government by lobbying  to  influence other people to support the organization’s position.  These interest groups  often testify in legislative hearings,  donate to  political candidates  (Www.opensecret.org),  and donate money to candidate or organization to lobby  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  politicians.   When special interest effects certain elite groups, the candidate of the elite group can spread their ideas to the  public  at large,  which results in  a  change  in  public opinion, thus ensuring their ideas and objective are in place in the society. Special interest group  are  formed  by groups of individuals,  and  the group’s ability to drawn in large  numbers  of citizens directly impacts the quality of policy,  because when implementing a policy, to satisfy its members,  the policy drafting procedure must ensure a common understanding of the law, must be readable (not overly complex),  and it must  achieve  the group’s social, political,  and legal objectives,  which are the criteria of a good-quality policy.  Reading) ( Think tanks are a wide range of institution that provides public policy research, advice,and analysis, while operating independently. They are non-profit  and  operate  independently  from political partiesand government. Their main goal is to help government officials  understand and make rational decisions  on different issues.  They support policy developments by  conducting research on  complex issues  with their expertise and present their extensive findings to  government officials,  such as congress and other officials. Think tanks  act  as  an intermediary  between knowledge and politicians. However, think tanks approach different issues differently. A scientific approach requires extensive testing  of  theories about the policy effects. A professional approach requires analysis of the  opportunity cost of different alternatives. And lastly a political approach requires support of  the  left or right-wing party. Although the description above summarizes different approaches  for different think tanks, the underlying  simultaneous approach requires think tanks to understand complex issues and to provide research and advice to  funders  or  political leaders  and together draft a quality policy that can reach different objective. To explain the difference between political vs economic model we can look at democracy vs communism.  To begin with, democracy is entirely a political model. In  the American sense, democracy is no economic model. It is a system in which the people at large vote upon voluntary candidates who have asked to serve as representatives in a variety of capacities, and once winning election, to decide policy as they see fit. As this structure the  administration of the country, with no necessary commentary upon economics, it is a political model. By contrast, communism is an economic model, though its nature does tend to favour a political structure. Communism is an extreme flavour of socialism that emphasizes the dignity of the common worker, who is credited with building and maintaining all human societies. As such, communism purports to establish an economy free of financial inequality, in which the workers – constituting most of the population – are all equal social partners. It is in this manner that communism can be mistaken for a political model, as such tight controls on societal resources all but require a strong centralized government to oversee distribution. But this is a consequence of communisms economic ideal, rather than a prescription. Communism is an economic model. Again, an economic model as rigid as communism tends to demand a powerful government, but ultimately it is a nations political model – not its economic model – that determines the selection of policies. This is only sensible, as policy should be set by a nations leaders – even if, as in the U.S.A  example above, those leaders are none but the people themselves – and not by directly by economic factors. I believe economic model should dictate policy making, because  economic model is  a much effective and less costly  way to  drive changes in the country.  When  we look at the  example of increase  alcohol tax  led to decrease in alcohol purchase.  We can see that economic policy  clearly influences human behaviour. Not only it decreases drunk driving accidents, it increases  productivity  and health gains. In the past we have seen example of political models in place to ban alcohol  (18th  amendment), not only it did not decrease  incentive to purchase  alcohol, it increase power, corruption within a nation  which  cause  more  social damage to a  nation.  Economic model has proven itself as the best model to drive changes in a country  and human behaviour. References Keilman, John. Higher Booze Tax a Lifesaver?  Chicago Tribune. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. Top Donor Profiles.  Center for Responsive Politics. 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. www.opensecrets.org>.Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein.  Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UP, 2008. Print.