E-Paper
Guest column | Pandemic unveils the politics of expertise
Policymaking during the pandemic unveiled a new debate on the politics of expertise. The exclusion theorists feel that domination of experts in an emergency, however successful it may be, cannot be a rule forever. Their efforts during the pandemic implore that the role of experts in the making of public policies should henceforth be more pronounced
The Covid-19 pandemic unleashed a global crisis that pressed for expertise more than ever before. Virologists, epidemiologists, and other health scientists were sought after across nations to reframe health policies to cater to the requirements of the pandemic. And, their formulations to contain the coronavirus remained unchallenged. The epistemic authority of experts justified restrictive measures even though they involved discomfort.
The policy adjustments were never as quick as it was during the pandemic. Conventional policymakers conceded more space to experts to contain the contagion and save the lives of millions of people. Even, the selection of knowledge and evidence was left to the experts, which otherwise was a political task. It may have caused some hidden discomfort to those who have rarely been ignored or sidestepped, though they continued with the enforcement and implementation of measures proposed by experts to remedy the situation.
Expertise is a stock of knowledge generated through research and analysis. It is different from experiential learning and recurrent use of knowledge. The experience and practical usage make a person learned and proficient but not an expert. Experts create knowledge, whereas policymakers use such knowledge. Artificial intelligence and climate change mitigation and adaptation measures are some of the examples of knowledge created by experts but applied through public policies. Political executives may accept or deny knowledge, depending on their policy ambitions, populism, or contextual requirements. The pandemic, however, did not leave much choice to them.
Multidisciplinary process needed
Though not necessarily linear, policymaking involves a multidisciplinary process. Professor Eugene Bardach and professor Eric M Patashnik defined an eight-fold path, which begins with defining the problem and continues till the completion of the story. The collection of data and evidence, construction of alternatives, selection of criteria, projection of outcomes, encountering trade-offs, and focusing on implications are other steps in completing the story.
During the pandemic, the problem defined itself with sufficient evidence, and there was no time for data collection and research. Given the deadly nature of the virus, the normal processes would not have worked. The existing and even some indigenous knowledge, wisdom, and practices saved lives. Trial and error method was applied quite often. The research and formulation of the vaccine at lightning speed also involved process-cutting, commonly termed bureaucratic procedures.
The experts followed their path and formulated and reformulated the policies that the political executives and bureaucracy enforced. They also provided evaluation and maintenance support, which otherwise was a task of civil servants. The policies and enforcement efforts of the governments worked well, and the pandemic is nearly endemic now.
Policymaking during the pandemic unveiled a new debate on the politics of expertise. The exclusion theorists feel that domination of experts in an emergency, however successful it may be, cannot be a rule forever. Their efforts during the pandemic implore that the role of experts in the making of public policies should henceforth be more pronounced.
There may be evidence suggesting that the political executives did not hesitate to sidestep bureaucracy to suit the situation. And, unsubstantiated averments also suggest that civil servants were unwilling to give up their conventional indirect role in policymaking. It may be difficult to deny that the civil servants played a critical role in managing the crisis, but a dearth of knowledge and information about the widespread new contagion was a constraint. The active collaboration and participation of the experts filled the gap and helped meet the challenges with the support of political executives.
Triangular strife in policy-making
The triangular strife in policymaking is showing its signs. Some experienced and proficient civil servants consider their experience as expertise. On the other hand, the arrogance of experts has also risen. Some of them claim to be the sole repository of knowledge. The political executives are sitting pretty, and they opt for whatever gets them the results and the support of their constituents.
Policymaking cannot remain in a silo. It is also not merely a function of experts or civil servants. It requires multidisciplinary thoughts and actions for success. Experts generate data and create evidence - digital or physical, and produce multiple options but may not be able to embed these in a context, which is primarily a socio-political decision. They can define the cause of action and suggest a solution but cannot decide its suitability in a context. They may understand the economy of knowledge, but the knowledge cannot be used or promoted without a clear understanding of the physical economy. The role of political executives is also vital to achieving and maintaining democratic and civil influence and public essence in the policies.
The politics of expertise shall not become a bane of policymaking. The availability of experts should be solicited along with the active participation of all stakeholders with due humility and respect for human values, even if we transform from a physical world to a virtual world. The interaction and networking with the stakeholders should help narrow down the choices of knowledge and evidence. Such an effort would enhance the credibility and acceptability not only of the process but also the policies.
Minimise bias in policy-making
The knowledge, in any case, cannot operate independently of asymmetric power relations. The prejudices and biases of individuals and organisations may interfere with and produce policies that are not non-discriminatory. Efforts are needed to minimise bias in policy-making without excluding expertise and innovations. All social actors - individuals, and organisations should come together as constellations in various forms of socially structured power to pursue policymaking with clearly shared moral preferences and material interests. It will help create informed, evidence-based, and inclusive policies, rendering the politics of expertise meaningless.
sureshkumarnangia@gmail.com
The writer, a retired IAS officer, is a former chief principal secretary to the Punjab chief minister. Views expressed are personal
