Open Policy Formulation For Colombo

Policy experts like to consult.  One reason is that blue-sky policy formulation never works.
One does need abstract concepts and specialised knowledge for good policy, but the best policy melds specialised knowledge and concrete facts about the problem that is to be solved.  There is never a “best” policy for all circumstances; the best policy is what fits the circumstances best.

Policy making also involves complexity.  Concrete conditions are always complex.  Problems interact with each other.  Policy solutions interact with each other.  Unintended consequences are common.  Consultation helps avoid problems.
Another reason is that one needs to identify the winners and losers and strive for a win-win solution.  The last is that one gets buy-in through consultation.
Some experts like to talk to a few other experts.  Others like to consult all stake holders.  Still others like to throw it wide open.  The first option is economical with time: the parties know the language and share the assumptions, but that is its weakness too.  When you throw open the process to all, the workload can be very high, especially if one wants to be responsive.  But the yield is rich.
The classic method of responding is to publish a table containing all the suggestions and comments received, along with the responses.
When I was running policy for government back in 2002-04, we used open policy making.  We used to run newspapers advertisements in multiple languages containing summaries of the document being developed along with a URL where the document could be downloaded and the time and place of the consultation.  We provided hard copies very rarely.  The advertisement was in all three official languages but we did not translate the document itself.  Unlike when I was at the Telecom Regulatory Commission (TRC), we did not go out into the regions.  All consultations were held at the Treasury in Colombo.
Imperfect, but given the speed at which we were moving and resource constraints, it was the best we could do.  It was, however, more open than anything else that was being done at the time.

How open?

Were we biasing participation opportunities by not translating the texts?  Were we privileging those with access to the Internet by asking that it be downloaded?  Were persons outside Colombo disadvantaged?  Should we have reimbursed travel costs for intervenors, as we did when I conducted public hearings at the TRC?
Any particular configuration of technologies used for consultation can be criticized.  The only one immune to criticism is no consultation.  If you run a stealth process no one will know that a policy is being formulated.  That is the safest.  But it is sub-optimal in technical terms and wrong when making public policy.  In the real world, one balances and compromises, factoring in available technology, time and resources.
Sri Lankan political campaigns are short.  We have no tradition of paid professionals running them.  Volunteers are hard to manage.  Resources put into the web interaction takes away from face-to-face.  Netizens like the candidate to directly engage with them, so do the majority of the citizens of Colombo who never go anywhere near the Internet.  One has to balance.
So what was the balance we settled for in the Milinda for Mayor Campaign?

Open policy making

A draft policy platform was presented to the media early in the campaign.  The text was placed on ourcmb.com, a site optimised for receiving comments.  Suggestions are being actively solicited through face-to-face meetings and through Facebook.  The website works only in English, but all three languages are available on Facebook.  A revised document reflecting the process will be published a week or so before the election.
There was a tussle over the design of the original advertisements.  Understandably, the designers did not want to clutter their elegant advertisement with multiple contact information.  But given the political purpose, a postal address and a telephone number etc., were also provided.
The test was whether the suggestions would come; whether a jaded electorate would yawn and turn the page.
The first weeks indicate otherwise.  Suggestions and comments have come in thick and fast.  People write to the candidate or share ideas with him at meetings.  He discusses them with the policy team regularly.  I have participated in interactions with community activists.  A few letters have come.  But the website and Facebook have been fecund too.
An educator from Wadduwa told the candidate what kinds of information should be provided to people interacting with government.  The suggestion was about registration of births (a matter outside the remit of the CMC) but still a useful input for the design of the e-government services being planned for the new CMC.
As the head of the policy team, I respond to comments related to policy on behalf of the candidate.  For comments on issues the target is a response within two days.  This was achieved in the second week.
The first addendum that was developed was triggered by concerns about three-wheelers voiced at face-to-face meetings, with some input from those coming through the web.
A city requires taxis as part of its transportation mix.  Taxis can range from three-wheelers to air-conditioned cars and vans.  The CMC under my leadership will design and implement a framework for taxis that will include co-regulation to ensure the rights of consumers and the provision of necessary facilities such as parking areas.  In contrast to many cities where the municipality directly regulates taxi service, it is my intention to develop a co-regulatory mechanism whereby all operators will be required to join associations which will develop standards for charging, cleanliness, hours of operation, etc., with the concurrence of the CMC.  It is only when the associations fail to ensure adherence to standards that the CMC will intervene.  Facilities such as parking for three-wheelers will be provided through associations.
Rapid transit has been much discussed by netizens.  The policy team had discussed the subject at length and included it in the document.  In the first instance, rapid transit serves suburbanites with business in the city, thus requiring a region-wide approach.  It is very costly and thus requires mobilization of expertise.  The process needs to start, without specifying a technology.  This is what the document currently states: no decision on changing the language as yet.
People are beginning to discuss the pros and cons of removing plant sellers from the city’s premier park.  Attention is being sought for the children’s playground equipment at Vihara Maha Devi Park and elsewhere.  There was language in original text, but it may be expanded.
The original text referred to the need for even pavements and crosswalks conducive to the disabled.  Ajith C. S. Perera, the advocate for disabled access, wanted broader language and the candidate speaking on the subject.  The language will be changed.  Mr Perera has his own Facebook page and interacted over the web.

Elections as “engagable moments”

People have many demands on their time and attention.  It is only during elections that public affairs get priority.Yet, effective policy formulation and implementation requires active citizen engagement.  Milinda Moragoda’s open approach appears to have engaged the citizens (and the netizens).  People are discussing substance in addition to the usual horse-race aspects of Sri Lanka’s second national pastime.
The challenge is to hold that engagement and mobilize it productively to solve the many problems facing the citizens of Colombo.  Technology is the means: multiple technologies, multiple paths.  Engagement is the end.