Is viral the new criteria in research for policymaking? This article was published in thejakartapos
As a user of almost all social media platforms, I have been lately hit by the fact that many policies have been changed or official actions taken because they had gone made viral and were discussed (or gossiped about) among netizens. It appears that social media has developed into a powerful platform for influencing governmental decisions, as evidenced by trending hashtags and viral posts.
This was seen in a recent event involving an apparently casual complaint on X, where users were asking questions about a customs policy and importing equipment intended for disabled students at a special school. What at first seemed like a harmless post gained momentum and led to serious policy considerations from a public servant with the power to make changes.
“Ada masukan konkret?” (any constructive input) read a response from Finance Ministry spokesman Yustinus Prastowo, which might have sounded like a joke to X users but was not.
It was a genuine question from a public servant who actually has the power to design, make and change policy. However, amid this flurry of online activism, one cannot help but question the efficacy of such impromptu policy adjustments. There are many research methods that can be used at different stages of the policymaking process: quantitative, qualitative or mixed, you name it.
Does open discussion of a viral post that contains complaints, insults and mockery also count? Research-based policymaking is a crucial concept in the development of effective laws and regulations. Research is necessary to develop well-informed, practical policies that are sensitive to societal demands. Any policy not based on research will have a faulty design that can trigger public resistance and opposition, as happened in the case of the policy on customs and import taxes at the airport.
In this case, the policy under discussion is regulatory, and so requires thorough research. It appears that everyone has forgotten that our laws stipulate that we have our own methods to draft regulations that genuinely consider the costs and benefits of the resulting policy.
Legislative drafting methods like the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and the Rule, Opportunity, Capacity, Communication, Interest, Process and Ideology (ROCCIPI) are mentioned and suggested in the law on creating legislation, yet their practical application is still limited. But instead of carefully weighing the costs and benefits for each stakeholder, policymakers seem inclined to prioritize the benefits of a few stakeholders.
The integrity of the policymaking process is compromised by this fallacy, which also ignores the welfare of the people affected by the decision. In response to the public outcry, authorities quickly announced an overhaul of the customs clearance system, tax exemptions for disability equipment and even a return to previous regulatory versions.
These rapid policy changes emphasized the transformative power of viral content in enabling change for the better and holding policymakers accountable to the collective voice of the people. However, the rushed nature of reactive policymaking also raises concerns about efficacy and sustainability. While viral pressures may have stimulated some rapid, initial reforms, there is still an urgent need for thorough research, strategic planning and stakeholder engagement to ensure sustainable solutions.
Policy changes motivated merely by viral occurrences run the risk of being a Band-Aid solution that doesn't address underlying systemic problems. Therefore, while the influence of viral posts and ensuing discussions can be a catalyst for policy reform, their impacts must be complemented by a commitment to research-based policymaking and comprehensive policy evaluation. The consequences of an impulsive policy revision have tangible impacts. Consider the significant amount of taxpayers' money that has been spent on revising policies that are eventually returned to their original version within a very short timeframe.
Such examples highlight the inherent weaknesses of a process that favors profits and shortcuts over thorough research. Furthermore, proceeding with a faultily designed policy not only wastes resources but also diminishes public trust in government processes. People may question the competence and integrity of policymakers and wonder if their interests are truly being served. Based on these observations, it is crucial that we reconsider the country’s current approach to policymaking.
Instead of looking for shortcuts to create unfounded policies, policymakers should accept their responsibility to conduct careful research and analysis before implementing significant reforms. Public discussions on social media about a problematic viral policy should not be the sole basis for revising or even formulating policy. While it is applaudable that policymakers are now paying attention to the public, it begs the question: Shouldn't this dialogue take place prior to policy implementation?
Examining online discussions, insults and complaints related to a viral post is not a thorough study, nor does it provide enough to formulate research-based or evidence-based policies. After all, the distinguishing feature of effective governance lies not in the speed of policymaking, but in the depth of consideration and the extent of its impact.
As citizens, this case prompts us to reflect on the effectiveness of policymakers' approach. Are we satisfied with policies that are made in the blink of an eye and then need to be revised afterward, or do we demand a more thoughtful and research-based governance approach?
This requires reevaluation of our expectations of policymakers and renewed commitment to ensuring that policy decisions are based on thorough research and analysis, protect people's interests and promote sustainable progress. We do not really want our country to become viral for its viral-based policymaking, do we? ***
Written by: Nadya Jessica Junita, Policy Analyst at Regional Autonomy Watch (KPPOD)
Source: https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2024/05/20/is-viral-the-new-criteria-in-research-for-policymaking.html.