I recently conducted a survey to figure out where our ministers and MPs get practical ideas which they use to craft policies or contribute in parliamentary debates.
Charles Dhewa
Policy making is not only a complex process that is difficult to influence but also very important. It has to be guided by credible, user-friendly evidence.
In Zimbabwe, while evidence is critical, real life contexts in which policy makers make decisions have become more decisive.
There have been cases where robust evidence has been ignored because it doesn’t speak to the context. Policy making follows a different logic from academia where a number of ministers and legislators are drawn. Where policy makers have tried to use evidence, such efforts have been undermined by the cognitive and institutional features of the political process. This could explain why some of the smartest researchers went docile upon becoming ministers or MPs.
Zimbabwe’s national aspirations will not be achieved without evidence-based decision-making. Unfortunately, we no longer have strong research institutions that can generate game-changing ideas for policy makers. Evidence from my survey indicate that ministers and MPs currently rely on the media, common sense and standard operating procedures for decision-making ideas.
In their constituencies, MPs receive grievances rather than ideas that can be turned into solutions. Part of the reason is that the legislator is assumed to know it all and can provide all solutions. On the other hand, Zimbabwe’s political ecosystem is so demanding that policy makers can only attend to a few data sources at a given time.
If you ask a legislator what his or her sources of knowledge are, you will be lucky to get a coherent answer. While personal contact between policy makers and researchers tends to be important, many policy makers lack skills in translating research evidence into useful ideas.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The role of evidence is also hindered by the fragmentation of levels of government which tends to limit the dissemination of research ideas.
A district agriculture extension officer may need clearance from the minister of Agriculture to speak to the media about issues that affect his or her district. As a result, a local MP may not be privy to important socio-economic issues in his or her constituency.
Such bottlenecks stifle the flow and use of evidence for decision making.
Other confusing structures that block the use of evidence include duplication of efforts between the district administrator and the council chief executive officer. Gathering simple evidence on how certain issues affect ordinary rural people may require filtering ideas with all these structures, some of whom may have their own vested interests in concealing or revealing evidence.
Since most policy makers have not been trained in using evidence to inform their decisions and practice, they rely on common sense, standard practices and comparative convenience in using whatever information is available. Policy makers also lack understanding of how evidence can be used properly or misused.
They are also unaware of the differences in the quality of information they receive either from newspapers or from friends. For instance, many legislators do not understand the whole notion of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
From a recent discussion on this issue by some MPs, it was clear they were not able to separate opinions from facts. Part of the problem is that contested ideas on this issue tend to be pushed from interested parties both among the pro and anti-GMOs scientists.
Where policy makers find evidence too contested, complicated or boring, they end up resorting to what resonates with their common sense and gut feelings.
They may also close their minds to evidence for fear of appearing inconsistent even if there is new evidence replacing their previous views.
Failure to harness evidence partly explains why Zimbabwe focus on personalities instead of discussing possibilities and opportunities.
Ministers and MPs have to be trained in using the best evidence. At the moment, there is a mismatch between political processes like the Parliament and the requirements of evidence-based decision-making.
Many policy makers have not been trained in appraising evidence critically. Some end up bringing their own disciplines to their work and cannot think across disciplines.
As a result, it becomes difficult for a policy maker whose background is political science to engage meaningfully with the one whose background is agricultural economics. While engineers may think the role of social scientists is talking to people, social scientists may think engineers are more concerned with pouring concrete.
These different and unsubstantiated perceptions end up clouding the political processes, thus stalling productive and collaborative dialogue.
One of the biggest challenges in Zimbabwe is that what is supposed to be relevant research evidence is often of poor quantity and quality. For instance, existing agriculture research is of poor quality and limited applicability.
For an agro-based economy it is amazing that there are no policy studies that explore synergies between horticulture and livestock, for instance.
When horticulture studies in Mashonaland East province are not applicable to Matebeleland North province, it means such studies generate partial truths.
Studies like the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Committee (ZimVac) report lack features that would make them easier for MPs or ministers to evaluate.
In addition, the quality of most studies by NGOs is often difficult for non-experts to interpret because the explanation of research methods tends to be long and complicated. In the absence of user-friendly evidence, policy makers take positions they are emotionally drawn to because there is nothing more substantive to use.
Guidelines or authoritative reports from prominent organisations like the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) or the World Food Programme (WFP) are regarded as the only important sources of evidence due to lack of skills and resources in government departments to collect and synthesise pertinent evidence from the local communities that can inform policy making processes.
Even when evidence is available, MPs and ministers may have problems obtaining it.
For example, in the majority of cases, evidence gathered by NGOs or private companies is never made public. This leaves policy makers wondering how such information or evidence would impact policy making processes if it is availed in appropriate forms.
Charles Dhewa is the chief executive officer of Knowledge Transfer Africa which has an agricultural knowledge sharing facility called eMkambo. Email: [email protected]
