By Benjamin Lyngdoh
A policy is a set of guidelines or rules or framework which are to be followed in order to attain a certain goal. The nature and potency of any policy totally depends on policy dynamics which basically refers on the manner in which a policy is being formulated and implemented. Policy dynamics grapples with elements such as understanding of the problem, decision-making and so forth. The key element is ‘willingness to change’ based upon a certain perspective of developmental issues. In Meghalaya, the policy dynamics is paralysed as what is formulated is hardly being implemented. For instance, environmental sustainability as an element of policy is good to read, but its implementation is a different story altogether.
Policy dynamics is mostly seen in terms of how a problem is defined. Take unemployment as a case. It is mainly defined as the inability of the state to provide jobs for all and/or provide the infrastructure and support-base for self-employment. This definition is flawed primarily because it is practically impossible to provide jobs to all and that infrastructure building is not easy for a financially dependent state. The point is that if the problem is wrongly defined then the solutions will also be wrongly formulated. On the contrary, the proper way to define the unemployment problem should encompass the inability to assess and exploit the resources that are available locally. For example, seasonal fruits like oranges are plainly sold as a finished product. It would be wonderful if capacities are built to process them into juice and preserve them in tin cans for wider marketing. The possibilities are unending. Horticulture and agriculture are Meghalaya’s strength which have not been sufficiently tapped. Similarly, the failure to produce IAS and IPS officers on a regular basis is defined as the inability or lack of dedication amongst the students. This flawed definition is convenient as the state can then just wash its hands of the matter. How about defining it as the lack of preparation and awareness right from the high school days?
If the start is right then everything else that follows will also go right. Policy dynamics works in the same way. Once the problem is correctly defined then the second element which is policy formulation would go off effectively as well. Here, decision-making on the problem takes centre-stage. The policy document should entail procedures to be followed to deal with the problem. In Meghalaya the practical picture is quite the opposite. Policy documents look great and are pleasing to read but with little impact on the livelihoods of the targeted people. In most cases it is not even clear who the targeted people are. This happen when decisions on the problem are made against the backdrop of poorly defined problems/issues.
For example, the state government is trying to deal with unemployment by focussing on the establishment of IT hubs, call centres, small businesses, gaming, tech-arts, culture and creative performances, etc. These are fine, but they encompass a small section of the youth who are on the look-out for jobs. The majority are still in the villages, stuck in the villages and they do not see any livelihood scope other than what they can do at the village. What about them? Solutions for them are not forthcoming as they are absent and invisible to the decisions made in the process of policy formulation.
In the policy dynamics of formulation and implementation two things are possible – collaboration or conflict. For a policy to impact on the ground collaboration is critical. It is seen that in developmental policies the ‘partnership/involvement of the grassroots’ is harped upon. The reality is not so. Most of the villagers are not part of any implementation processes. This is the lack of collaboration and without it any policy is bound to fail. If the government would move beyond policy alone and also work on tie-ups with village bodies like the dorbar, societies, etc., then the outcomes can be far better. What will happen is that a sense of urgency will be created on any intended intervention.
The case of conflict is more difficult. It happens when two or more sections have different opinions on matters of policy. Conflict is a result of too much assertiveness and no cooperation. For example, the policy dynamics of ILP is full of conflict. The pressure groups are assertive with no inclination to cooperate and the state government is helpless. This becomes a lose-lose situation for all. The way out of a conflict is compromise. The degree of assertiveness has to come down and cooperation should increase. Now, for this compromise to happen the state government has to come out with a remedial solution (say an acceptable to all MRSSA).
Policy dynamics is futuristic. It adapts to new developments and the changes in the economy and society. An important aspect about policy is that it is not ideated and conceived in a closed environment. In fact, policies are action plans for development while also keeping in mind the competition in the region/country. For example, Meghalaya’s policy on railways should have been enforced keeping in mind the development competition from other states. But it is not so! Meghalaya is a small state which is basically dependent on central government funding and loan borrowings. Now, if the policies are not forward-looking then how is the state supposed to develop? Stop-gap and placating solutions like a toy train is ineffective for growth. Policies should look to embrace macro interventions that would benefit the people at large and not just a section of the economy. The proper roadmap is first having passenger/goods railways and then within that have the provision for toy trains and not the other way around. Policy has to be progressive and not regressive.
Dialogue in policy is a must. Some of the best ideas on governance actually come from the streets. The small vendors, taxi drivers, daily wage labourers, unemployed youth, etc., do give good inputs on how policy and development interventions need to be. Some of them have an analytical mind and give out wonderful suggestions. They just need a space to be heard. As of today, when public suggestions are invited on a draft policy document it does not touch the grassroots. It would be good if they are reached out for suggestions in local dialects and then processed accordingly into the document.
For instance, the intended shifting of street vendors from Laitumkhrah main road to another location (earlier Lady Veronica Lane and now Beat House) is much needed due to footpath congestion. However, the residents of the lane disagree and it remains to be seen how much Beat House would help. Plus, a conversation with those vendors amply shows that the ideas are a no-no. They raise the question of marketability at those locations. So, where is the dialogue in the dynamics?
In the end, if Meghalaya intends to experience the development that it craves for then its policy dynamics require a sea change. This can only happen with the change in perspective amongst the people and the government.
(Email – [email protected])