Role of Society

Dynamics of State-Society Interface and Policy Process

State institutions play a significant role in defining the nature, patterns, and outcomes of policy

state-centered perspective on policy has limited explanatory potential in the Indian context.

The complexity of policy processes in India cannot be understood without taking into account
the dynamics of engagement with the policy process in wider society.

When one looks at specific processes of policy-making, one is confronted with a wide range of
factors:

 extent of organization and participation,

 proximity or access to policy-makers,
 nature of the issue and the scope of conflicts
 alignments and indifference among stakeholders
 interest configurations

India has a long history of political mobilization and associational life.

Modern forms of interest-based organizations emerged where new forms of interests emerged

new organizations of interest groups also emerged that worked for the pursuit of their members’
economic interests.

more organized interest groups, which engaged with the policy process with some regularity,
groups came into existence or became active to influence some specific issue of concern

Over the years, strong public interest groups and new social movements

The nature and patterns of participation in policy process have also undergone transformation
over the years because of these developments.

Policy processes in India provide opportunities for formal associations of citizens and interest
groups.

For instance, at the legislative level, there exist formal provisions for such interaction at the select
committee stage of various bills.

The select committee extends an open invitation to all individuals and institutions that feel
concerned with the legislative proposals under its consideration to send memoranda to the
committee.
After examining these memoranda, it can also summon some of them to give oral evidence
before the committee.

However, because the recommendations of the select committee are not binding on the
legislature, the scope for influencing policy through the select committee is limited.

Therefore, resorting to informal interactions with legislators is quite frequent. Efforts to influence
policy-making also take the shape of formal and informal interactions with members of other
parliamentary committees

There are also formal channels for interaction with the executive.

Nonofficials are often associated in a representative or expert capacity with various consultative
and expert committees, commissions, and councils that are formed at the initiative of
government.

These include statutory committees created by law and nonstatutory committees that are
created by the executive itself to address specific issues of concern and make recommendations.

However, the capacity of interests to influence policy-making through these committees is

constrained because of such association being dependent on government choice.

Memoranda, notes, briefs, and so on, are generally sent by the concerned citizens or interest
groups to those in important positions in the executive—political and administrative.

Frequent meetings, seminars, and conferences are organized to increase interactions on issues
of concern and thereby influence policy positions.

Consultative and associative processes of policy do not ensure equality of participation in policy-
making for all interests who might be affected by the policy.

The more organized and articulate interests supporting their claims through other methods such
as media publicity or interpersonal relations get the attention.

A large section of society does not find a place in the consultative framework of policy process.

As a result, more articulate and resource-endowed groups generally acquire an edge over others
in influencing policy.

It is interesting to note that one also finds direct action methods of protest, demonstration,
march, strike, sit-in, or even fasting to either mobilize public support or show existing support,
thereby putting pressure for getting a policy accepted, altered, or withdrawn.

Non-cooperative participation in policy process is different from individual acts of defiance and
involves collective processes of political participation.
Example:

 Protests by tribal and other village people against certain development projects have also
taken this form in recent years.
 In many cases, such action implied an extension of policy process to the post decisional
stage and seeks a rethinking on policy.

In certain spheres of policy, such as environment, gender, trade negotiations, and so on, an
increasing role is being played by social movements and public interest groups to challenge the
patterns and processes of policy.

Networking has acquired a prominent role in generating pressure to seek, modify, or resist a
policy.

The recent agitation for legislation to set up the institution of Lokpal, or ombudsman, enjoyed
the support of not only many nongovernmental organizations fighting against corruption but also
those working on other issues.

The role of media, especially electronic media, including social media, influencing policy choice
by shaping public opinion has also assumed new heights and was evident during this
anticorruption movement.

The legislation on this issue had been introduced several times in the last 40 years but could not
be passed for some reason or the other.

The pressure has eventually resulted in the bill being introduced in parliament after being
discussed by the standing committee, which also collected evidence from various groups that
were interested in the issue.

Formal channels of interaction, informal channels of influence the policy process is considered a
preferable strategy in many cases.

Business interests in India, despite being among the most organized and articulate of various
interests, have been known to evoke relations of exchange or reciprocity for seeking favorable
interventions in the policy process.

Many instances of policy failure at the implementation level are caused by widespread
corruption.