THE FALLACY OF ‘OUR POLICIES ARE GOOD’, THE PROBLEM IS IMPLEMENTATION
Written by Millennium on August 18, 2019
When you go for either international or local conferences, you often hear our people claim “we thought of this idea and others came to Zambia to learn from us and implemented it.’
The problem with us is implementation.” This statement gives comfort to many of us. However, it exposes a lack of understanding by those who utter or share such views.
From the onset, let me state that a policy is a purposeful course of action, underline the word course of action, aimed at achieving intended outcomes.
Therefore, a policy is not a mere pronouncement or a one off event.
A policy is a process that takes into account all factors from diagnosing of the problem you wish to address, identifying the solution, designing the response to the challenge, testing the impact of the response and continuously aligning the response to the realities on the ground.
So those who claim that are policies are good but only the implementation is bad are at the level of whereby you have this great idea but no roadmap on how to realise it.
A good policy takes in account all factors at each stage so that when it is finally framed, there is a link between objectives and desired outcomes.
Thus, any policy that cannot be fully implemented was not well thought out from the very beginning.
Policy design is a complex issue as the human element or factor comes in at each stage. Some of the issues that are considered from the very beginning are the following:
(1). Logic of the policy: is the theory reasonable?
What theory underlines the connection between the policy and intended outcomes? Is the policy reasonable? Is the policy feasible? The characteristics of the policy and the circumstances of its adoption determine the hypotheses underlying implementation and the likelihood that they will be true.
(2). Who has the essential elements?
Whose cooperation is required for the successful implementation of the policy? Efforts need to be made to assemble essential elements for implementation from those who control them.
If you know that some special interest groups will fight the policy in question, how do you approach them to get a buy in way before the implementation starts?
(3). Availability of fixers: who will manage the assembly?
Policies do not implement themselves. In assessing the chances for successful implementation, one needs to consider the motivations and resources of those who will be managing the implementation.
What are their interests and how does a policy in question threaten their bread and butter issues?
To curb that, you may require assembling fixers to support the policy by cohesion, exposure, threats or collaboration with interest groups.
In sum, you need forward and backward mapping. The former entails being very specific about how to carry out the exercise to its logical conclusion in order to achieve the desired goals.
It envisages the response and behaviour of those involved in the process so as to find better alternatives before the process is curtailed.
The latter looks at what is the policy aiming at and how the organisation should structure itself if it has to attain its goals.
In other words, forward mapping is the most effective tool for predicting problems that may be met in the process of implementation and backward mapping is better placed to come up with alternatives for the smooth running of the policy implementation process.
So to claim that we have come up with good policies but the problem has been implementation basically means that you have a good idea at the conception level then you go ahead to implement it without a well thought process.
You are definitely bound to fail.
MWAMBA PENI II
