What Cooperative Lawmaking Would Look Like
Establishing a template for creating stakeholder-focused policy
Why it matters?
Americans are raised to think of our political system in idealistic terms. Our political mythology imbues us with the idea that policymakers from either party convene to work together on behalf of “the people.” And, although the process features vigorous debate and deal-making, officials eventually manage to sufficiently push aside their differences to forge compromises that collectively serve Americans, at least on the most vital issues.
But, that would presuppose that officeholders are in government to work collaboratively with all of their colleagues. In actuality, lawmakers are there to work with some of the other lawmakers to advance an agenda that some of the voters sent them there to advance. Meanwhile, opposing lawmakers, cheered on by their voters, do everything they can to block that agenda.
Such is the way of things in America, which, like every other free nation, has a political system based on competition. Those countries have something else in common with the U.S.: they are getting democracy wrong.
In a cooperative political system, all policymakers would work together to promote an agenda that almost everyone would want to advance. Officials would transcend their ideological disagreements to devise policies that would improve life for everybody.
(Seriously, doesn’t this sound much better than the way we do things now?)
What it entails?
Identify the stakeholders in each policy area
One purpose of establishing premises to analyze issues is to affirm that impacted people or groups are legitimate stakeholders. Stakeholders, as AWDHEO has previously defined the term, are any groups or individuals who are affected by policy issues.
So, for affirmative action, stakeholders could include eligible beneficiaries of affirmative action, those who aren’t covered by affirmative action and the schools, workplaces and programs whose operations are affected by affirmative action policies.
Identify stakeholders’ concerns
Once a list of stakeholders has been compiled, the next step is to figure out what each group cares about. Groups that benefit from affirmative action obviously want to preserve the opportunities that they receive through the policy, while excluded groups want equal access to these opportunities. Meanwhile, the schools, workplaces and programs that are affected by affirmative action provisions are most concerned about being able to carry out their missions, while meeting the established requirements.
Seek solutions not victories
If the victory-driven, partisan aspect was taken out of policymaking, it would open the complete array of possible solutions to affirmative action, as well as every other issue. If the offered policy responses weren’t defined as liberal/Democratic or conservative/Republican, then people wouldn’t automatically dismiss certain ideas simply because of their source.
Obviously, this would be easier said than done, as we have been conditioned through our whole lives to believe that the object of politics is to beat the other side. But, there are strategies lawmakers could use that would facilitate the passage of solutions-oriented policies:
Eliminate flashpoints for conflict
Sometimes, aggravating circumstances make achieving resolution between opposing sides nearly impossible. However, if these items are removed, compromise becomes more attainable.
In the case of affirmative action, the exacerbating factors are the possibilities that each side dreads most. For supporters, it’s the prospect of affirmative action just suddenly being gone, in an instant. For opponents, it’s the idea of it becoming an ever-expanding, eternal fixture in American law and life.
To create a climate that’s conducive to cooperation and compromise, policymakers should take both of these outcomes off the table. Proposals that would immediately or rapidly dismantle affirmative action programs should be non-starters. But, the same is true for approaches that would treat such programs as sacred cows that can never be touched.
Make recognition of the fundamental rights of stakeholders the starting point for making policy
When people’s basic liberties are under threat, they become consumed with rage, which causes them to shut down. However, if their bedrock freedoms are assured, they will become more accepting of compromises that relate to those freedoms.
When it comes to affirmative action, the essential right that should be guaranteed to both those who are and aren’t served by it should be the same: the chance to vie for educational, professional and other opportunities on a level playing field. There may be disagreements about what constitutes that condition, but the right of everyone to compete on an even surface must be universally affirmed.
Validate the concerns of stakeholders
Officials’ ultimate policy response to issues should take into account the concerns of everyone affected by those issues. More than that, it should legitimate the fact that their cares matter.
This doesn’t translate to all stakeholders getting exactly what they want. Cooperative policymaking doesn’t mean splitting policy spoils evenly among factions. The goal is to devise optimal policy solutions in the holistic sense. Some stakeholders might not get exactly what they’re seeking, but their underlying needs could be met though alternate proposals. Creative policymaking could also harmonize the interests of disparate stakeholders. And, sometimes, certain stakeholders may have to accept that, while their cares are indeed valid, the concerns of other stakeholders outweigh them.
But, whatever policy resolutions would emerge concerning affirmative action or any other matter, it’s plain that that the cooperative process allows unprecedented exploration into the complexity of policy issues. Under the standard, competitive model, partisans take multidimensional issues and reduce them to two sides: good and bad. And they classify each side’s stakeholders the same way.
* Portions of this post have been adapted from my upcoming book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down (2024).TLDR:
The American political system is based on competition, rather than cooperation.
Policymakers often work to advance the agenda of their own supporters, rather than serving the collective interests of all citizens.
- proposes a cooperative political system where policymakers would work together to devise policies that improve life for everybody this would entail:
Identifying all stakeholders affected by policy issues.
Understanding the concerns and needs of each stakeholder group.
Seeking solutions that address the interests of all stakeholders, rather than pursuing partisan victories.
Eliminating flashpoints for conflict and making recognition of fundamental rights the starting point for policymaking.
Validating the concerns of all stakeholders and devising optimal policy solutions that harmonize their interests.
Such a cooperative approach would lead to more comprehensive and effective policymaking, moving away from the current partisan dynamics.
Learn More:
 | A guest post by
|