Policy management before the legitimacy crisis

Governments must recognize the legitimacy tensions in their policies to prevent them from escalating into legitimacy crises. Policy makers should act as policy managers, and policy enforcers must be prepared to scrutinize policies.

Legitimacy is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. For governments, the concept of legitimacy is foundational and generally presumed to be secure. However, in this particular moment, it faces significant challenges and risks in Western countries.

There are several types of legitimacy, but undoubtedly the most influential in our western society is regulatory legitimacy. This form of legitimacy is rooted in legal frameworks, defining what is legally required and ensuring actions are subject to external scrutiny. It unambiguously emphasizes expected behaviour and arranges the delegation of enforcement to third parties. This ensures that regulatory rules are not only followed but are also enforceable with precision and authority.

Different types of legitimacy

While regulatory legitimacy is critical in Western societies, it's not the sole form of legitimacy. Normative legitimacy is derived from aligning actions with the community's social and ethical standards, emphasizing values and norms. Cognitive legitimacy stems from actions that resonate with widely accepted beliefs, becoming so ingrained they're taken for granted. Pragmatic legitimacy focuses on self-interest, where support for actions is based on direct or indirect benefits and not causing harm. However, in constitutional states, the rule of law plays the most critical role as the supreme arbiter of legitimacy, providing the most definitive judgment on what is considered desirable, proper, and appropriate. As such our legal system holds the power and is able to overrule other types of legitimacy.

This central role places significant responsibility on policy makers. As they shape the most powerful source of legitimacy, they face the challenge of ensuring that policy aligns with the other legitimacy sources, such as normative, cognitive, and pragmatic legitimacy. Failing to maintain this alignment over time can lead to diminished public trust and potentially spark a legitimacy crisis. Unfortunately, this delicate balance is not always maintained, as evidenced across many Western countries. There appears to be a growing disconnect between regulatory systems and the societal expectations, which has led to increased disenchantment and anger among various groups. This disillusionment is not without consequence, as there have been catastrophic instances where citizens find themselves at odds with, and even harmed by, the legitimate systems established to protect them. It is of paramount importance that policy makers not only recognize this issue but also take decisive action to ensure that (established) policies effectively serve their constituents.

Policy making for a dynamic society

Policy making has always been complex, but the challenges are even greater in today's fast-evolving society. Increased transparency and higher expectations from citizens and stakeholders, coupled with the expansion and growing complexity of regulatory frameworks, make policy development more daunting. In this dynamic landscape, we must admit that our policies are not flawless and may have unforeseen consequences. As societal changes accelerate and the regulatory complexity grows, the uncertainty and likelihood of unintended effects rises. It's important to recognize that this unpredictability is not a system failure; rather, it reflects our increasingly volatile world. Moreover, this situation highlights that the gap between regulatory legitimacy and other sources of legitimacy is likely to occur more frequently and rapidly, requiring new level of responsiveness from governments.

Unfortunately, very little policy makers act accordingly. Policy makers, often inclined to create new policies, would benefit more by viewing themselves as policy managers. Their role should focus on overseeing systems that require continuous attention and improvement, not necessarily through new policies but often by adapting or discarding existing ones to better serve society. Our current approach frequently leads to a buildup of rules and complexity, without earnest efforts to simplify and enhance the system's efficiency. This process also requires deep understanding and investigation of policies' drawbacks. However, due to the fear of negative publicity, policy makers tend to avoid scrutinizing their own policies. A culture of ongoing critical evaluation and reflection is missing in our practices; such analyses are typically reactive, prompted by external challenges to legitimacy, and often result first in legitimation rather than thorough investigation.

Politicians and government organizations

Another challenge lies in the dynamic between political actors and government organizations. Government organizations play a key role in implementing and enforcing policies, yet they seldom question the legitimacy of these rules post-implementation, viewing such assessments as beyond their purview and within the realm of the politicians. This stance represents a missed opportunity. Especially government organizations, by virtue of their role, are uniquely positioned to observe unintended consequences and identify when regulations conflict with other legitimacy forms. However, a prevailing culture of strict compliance overshadows the potential for reflective engagement with the rules. In addition, a structured approach to investigating the practical impact and transparent reporting is mostly absent. This lack of introspection and structured inquiry into the efficacy and consequences of policies is a significant oversight in the relationship between the politicians and government organizations.

In conclusion, policies are inherently imperfect and prone to growing misalignments with its society over time. Both political and administrative actors must adopt a more responsive approach, acknowledging a more comprehensive responsibility for the management of policy. Their responsibilities as policy makers and enforcers must incorporate ongoing validation to ensure that regulatory systems align with societal standards of legitimacy and are responsive to evolving tensions. Politicians, must deepen their engagement with established systems, focussing not primarily on creating policies, but also by actively ensuring these policies are effective and continuously improved, essentially acting as policy managers. Government organizations, serving as the frontline, should not only implement and enforce policies but also play a critical role in monitoring their effects and signalling the need for adjustment. This requires greater community involvement and new feedback practices, that identify and report on the downsides of policies. If institutions continue to perceive their policies as legitimate while citizens feel otherwise, trust in our constitutional state will erode, and populism will rise. This tension is real and action is required.

Acknowledgement: key constructs in the blog are among others based on the research of Suchman, (1995) regarding legitimacy and Abbott, Keohane, Moravcsik, Slaughter and Snidal (2000) regarding legalization.