"Who asked for this?" The danger of top-down policymaking

The elections are over for now, and legislative sessions are in full swing across the country. Elected officials may feel a short-term sense of relief after defeating their opponents in the electoral process. However, the policy legislators implement—or fail to implement—today may cripple their future political success, not to mention the success of their party. As policymakers settle into the bureaucratic business of lawmaking, it is not uncommon for communities to feel as if elected officials have abandoned them now that their ballots have been cast. The politician who was once accessible to the community seemingly disappears into the elusive political realm where the community cannot go. Instead, the community watches from afar, reading the news and social media posts about proposed legislation, confined to limited measures of making their voices heard through writing emails and making calls to their representative.

Research tells us that when the promises that the candidate ran on fail to come to fruition, citizens believe that elected officials do not care about ordinary citizens. While there is a plethora of reasons for why a candidate’s promises may remain unfulfilled, without community engagement, the most marginalized communities—the demographics that the more progressive candidates rely on to vote in their favor—feel as if their needs will never be represented within politics.

At its most basic definition, community engagement is, “a process through which community members are empowered to own the change they want to see and that involves communication, problem-solving, [and] governance.” Given that most progressive politicians run on a platform that acknowledges the importance of engaging communities, community engagement should be a significant process when drafting policy because communities elect the political candidate they think can best represent their needs. Representing a community’s needs is different than prescribing a community’s needs. Representation requires collaboration with a range of members in the community who can best identify and articulate the needs of the community. These needs are often multifaceted and require a holistic understanding of the problem as well as the root causes. However, politicians often fall into role of the prescribing the needs of the community, which often leaves communities feeling as if their struggles are a talking point rather than a genuine concern. A policy prescription is a policy introduced by an elected official that the community never asked for. These prescriptions are often lauded as progressive and give attention to the drafter, but the policy often falls short of incorporating the bigger picture and ensuring it will actually help the community. Prescribed policy does not typically impact the elected representative, but greatly affects the individuals who voted for the representative.

One must not look any further than Zuckerberg’s failed $100 million donation to reform Newark Public Schools, to understand that prescribing solutions for a community often fails. In that instance, the community was outraged after they learned about reform to their own community schools from Oprah’s show. Furthermore, no teachers who had insight into the needs of the education system were consulted. The current Mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, later lamented that “The foundation may have acted without fully understanding local issues, so it was hard for them to devise good solutions.” Positive outcomes based in lived experience aren't just nice to have, they are necessary for implementing change and continuing civic engagement.

It is not uncommon for politicians to draft and propose policy that sounds great paper but that has not engaged the community to provide input. This policy often boosts the optics of the policymaker, resulting in politicians being attracted to short-term results, rather than a lasting policy impact that would require getting involved in the more difficult details of drafting effective policy. Yet, this community input can be crucial, not only to ensure the policy is well-rounded and all encompassing, but also to understand any risks or possible consequences of the policy. Effective community input requires a multifaceted and diverse representation of community members who can identify risks or consequences to implementing a specific policy, and an understanding from the elected representative that a community is not a monolith. If a policy impacts a community, it is crucial to consult as many people from the community who will be impacted as possible. Otherwise, a community may be left with a disastrous policy, wondering, “Who even asked for this?”

Politicians are often not held directly accountable for the policy in which they draft. Whether the policy fails when it is introduced, or fails upon implementation, the politician has typically either shifted focus to other issues or has moved on to a new position altogether. The only people who remember the policy are those left to deal with it—the community, who will be asked to vote again, despite a lack of positive outcomes in the past.

While a top-down approach to policymaking may not have direct impacts on a specific elected official, it always has impacts on civic engagement and the community’s perception of politics and legislation. To keep voters civically engaged, and to increase the level of civic engagement, elected officials must begin to establish mechanisms for drafting community focused policy. This policy must engage the community, incorporate their recommendations, address their concerns, and demonstrate that they are valued for more than a vote.