Policy development process
Under the Simpol agenda, Simultaneous Policies are formulated by electors
and elected. Anyone, who has adopted SP, or pledged to enact SP if in
government, is entitled to participate. Simultaneous Policy measures will
be formulated at the level of the individual national SP organisations.
Policy proposals that are able to be implemented uniltaterally by a
national government are filtered out. Only policies deemed to require
simultaneous implementation by multiple governments will be processed further.
Final proposals, accepted at national level, will then go up to the
International Simultaneous Policy Organisation’s Global Policy
Committee, which will facilitate negotiations between national Simpol
organisations to determine which proposals have universal acceptability
and are therefore
best suited for implementation. As it will, in all probability, be a decade
or more before the Simpol movement is positioned to make the first such
policy choice a reality, the current system, developed by Simpol-UK (and to
be duplicated here in New Zealand) is only in embryonic form. It will grow
in sophistication as the movement grows.
(It should be remembered that any such proposals will have a final hurdle
of democratic acceptability to cross before they can be put forward for
implementation – namely, national referenda in all the countries involved.)
Policy Committee
It is the responsibility of the Policy Committee of Simpol-NZ to process
policy suggestions from Adopters, to publicise these to other Adopters and
to enable discussion and voting on suggestions. The Committee is also
responsible for ensuring the policy development process keeps pace with the
complexity of the task, through consulting with Adopters and putting forward
proposals for changes.
Simpol-NZ is still at the teething stage, but to demonstrate how this process
will work, please find below a history of the progress in policy
formulation in the UK up to the end of 2006. Subsequently, further
improvements have been made to the UK system – the most significant
of which is that any policy proposal put forward for consideration,
now has to have a minimum of ten supporters.
Simpol-NZ plans to have a policy formulation process, similar to the
UK’s, in situ by the end of April 2008.
Ranking of issues to be addressed
by SP
A questionnaire was sent to all UK SP Adopters in 2006, in what is intended
to be the first of annual rounds of voting.
The questionnaire asked Adopters to rank different issues, which SP could
address. Four issues were given as prompts from the suggestions already
submitted. Adopters were able to add issues of their own. By identifying
common themes a list of top ten issues emerges. The list (given below) has
no status in shaping policy content at this stage and will change as the
campaign develops, particularly as more people respond to questionnaires in
future rounds of voting. It serves as a guide for the Policy Committee and
Simpol-UK, as described below.
The role of experts in policy
development
The questionnaire included a question about if and
how the Policy Committee should involve outside experts in the policy
development process. The position has been that experts could only be
directly involved in the policy development process if they were
themselves Adopters. This followed a consultation in 2005 when the
policy development process was initiated. At that time it was decided
that Adopters can put forward policies they like from any source. But it
has not been the role of the Policy Committee to put forward proposals
of its own or to commission experts to do so or to analyse suggestions
from others.
In the latest consultation the majority of
respondents who commented on the matter were in favour of expert
involvement: 8 suggested experts should be involved for certain tasks
and/or with conditions attached, 5 supported the Policy Committee
involving outside experts without specifying conditions, 2 objected to
involvement of outside experts outright.
A further consultation meeting was held on 14
October 2006, run as an 'open space' using a methodology developed by
the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (based at
Nottingham University) which took part in a join seminar with ISPO at
the European Social Forum. Though there was little time to discuss the
role of experts, it is clear from the discussion that it is a subject
that raises strong feelings as it touches on the fundamental nature of
SP as a democratic space.
The rating of policy suggestions does suggest ways
forward. This will now be presented.
Adopters were asked to rate each suggestion as
follows:
A - indicates you like this suggestion and it
should be developed further.
B - indicates you think this issue is important, but the approach is
wrong.
C - indicates you think this suggestion is not suitable for inclusion in
SP.
D - indicates you need further information to understand the suggestion
better before you can give your view.
Pie charts have been used to summarise the ratings
given to each policy above. Different patterns emerged in the voting,
pointing to different ways forward. These include:
• Further information on the suggestion
required
• Further explanation of the issue required
• Further discussion by Adopters required
Further information on the
suggestion required
Where there is high support for a policy
suggestion and low rejection, the Policy Committee proposes it should be
given more space. For example, the results for the suggestion on the
‘Oil Depletion Protocol’ showed a high level of support for
it to be developed further (A = 81%), with few Adopters rejecting it
outright (C = 4%). There was little indication of Adopters wanting
alternative suggestions for the issue (B = 4%), but there was a demand
for further information (D = 11%).
An appropriate response could be to give space in
the newsletter to the oil depletion protocol, either an article from the
Adopter who put forward the suggestion or someone expert on it. Adopters
can, of course, put forward alternatives to be publicised to all
Adopters in the ‘policy zone’ of the website, through the
newsletter and in the next round of voting. Questions and opposition can
be raised in the on-line discussion forum and through letters for
publication in the newsletter. Support for suggestions may change in
time.
A similar situation applies to the International
Clearing Union. The International Clearing Union proposal was submitted
by an Adopter citing George Monbiot’s promotion of the original
proposal from Keynes. George Monbiot or another expert could be asked to
provide an article for the newsletter. The Policy Committee suggests the
use of an outside expert should not be controversial because they would
provide information on a proposal submitted and supported by Adopters.
Further explanation of the issue
required
Where there is high support for a particular issue
to be addressed by SP, though not necessarily the particular policy
suggestion, the Policy Committee proposes space is given to exploring
the issue.
For example, the results for the suggestion on
‘Monetary Reform’ show very few Adopters rejected it
outright (C = 4%). While there was significant support for the
suggestion put forward (A = 55%), some thought a different approach was
required (B = 10%) and a third of Adopters who responded wanted further
information (D = 31%).
It is perhaps necessary to give Adopters
information on the problem being addressed rather than the specific
suggestion. This can be done through the pages of the newsletter by
asking Adopters who have been active in discussions about the suggestion
to submit articles.
In this example, Adopters are in the process of
putting together a package of information going under the working title
of Simpoltons’ Guide to Monetary Reform. The Policy Committee
proposes that the draft of this can be made available on the website
and, if there is support from Adopters, it could be edited and published
by Simpol-UK. Comments on the suggestion will be communicated to the
Adopter who proposed it (as in all cases) who can provide additional
explanation through the on-line forum and discussion group. If Adopters
submit alternative suggestions (and 10% of respondents thought
alternative approaches may be better) then these will be publicised in
the usual way.
The rating of the suggestion for remodelling
companies has a similar profile: low outright rejection, but relatively
high support for alternative proposals and further information as well
as high support for the original suggestion. Again, further space could
be given to explaining the issue. Also see the general points concerning
policy fora below.
Further discussion by Adopters
required
The rating of several policy suggestions indicates
a difference of opinion amongst Adopters. Aside from publicising the
results to Adopters through the newsletter and posting the comments made
to the on-line forum, the Policy Committee proposes leaving further
discussion to Adopters. It is for the proposer to build support for
their suggestion or for those rejecting it to argue why or to put
forward alternatives.
For example, the proposal for ‘Equitable
Sharing of the World’s Resources’ has the following rating
profile. A good level of support (A = 42%), but relatively high outright
rejection (C = 13%) and desire for alternatives (B = 31%). Those wanting
additional information is relatively low (D = 14%) so perhaps the Policy
Committee should not give this a priority, other than providing means
for Adopters to communicate with each other.
The proposal on the ‘Solidar’, an
alternative currency, had relatively low overall support (A = 31%). A
high proportion of Adopters wanted further information on this or
alternative proposals (D = 51% and B = 10%). This indicates the proposer
needs to provide explanation to those interested in knowing more. The
Policy Committee can remind Adopters of the various ways they can
communicate with the proposer. The profile for ‘The One Per-cent
Solution (TOPS)’ is similar.
As with the other suggestions in this section, if
Adopters decide to keep discussion live, and possibly revise the
suggestion as a result of feedback, it will continue into the next round
of voting and may gain more support. However, proposers may decide not
to pursue their suggestions or future rounds of voting may knock it
further down the list.
The Policy Committee will consider if and how
policies should be resubmitted for the next round.
The ‘Esperanto’ suggestion for a world
language, received high levels of rejection (C = 71%) and low levels of
support (A = 13%). Again it is for the proposer to convince other
Adopters, should they wish to continue with the suggestion.
Voting on the suggestion judged
to be outside the scope of SP
It is a point of principle that it is for Adopters
to decide whether a policy is outside the scope of SP. While the Policy
Committee can give its views, it cannot veto a suggestion (unless it is
discriminatory or otherwise against the values of SP as set out in the
Founding Declaration).
The provisional Policy Committee believed the
suggestion for a ‘Fair and Sustainable Trade Institute’ to
be outside the scope of SP, as it could be introduced by a nation, or
group or nations, acting unilaterally. SP is focused on policies that
cannot be introduced because governments realistically fear taking
action will put their country at a competitive disadvantage. While
accepting this, the proposer wished it to be put forward to other
Adopters in accordance with present procedures.
A significant proportion of Adopters supported the
proposal (A = 39%), though many did reject it (C = 31%). The proposer
can perhaps look to this feedback as encouraging further development
towards the next round of voting. It will be treated as a proposal
requiring further discussion by Adopters. If a policy suggestion is
discriminatory and its dissemination would violate SP values (and
possibly race relations or incitement legislation) then the Adopter will
be asked to withdraw it. If the Adopter refuses, it will be held on file
and the Adopter may appeal to the membership of Simpol-UK at the next
Annual General Meeting.
Policy fora and guest articles
Local
SP Adopters’ Groups (SPAGs) and Simpol-UK
have held policy fora to discuss issues of interest. Outside experts
have been guest speakers to provide information on global problems and
sometimes possible solutions. For example, It’s Simpol ! Spring
2006 contained a report on a policy forum on corporate accountability
organised for Simpol-UK by Cambridge SP Adopters’ Group (CAMSPAG).
The policies discussed have no status within SP unless formally
submitted by an Adopter – in this example no policies were
submitted.
The way forward for the coming
period
The principle that only Adopters can submit policy
proposals remains at present. In the proposals above it is generally
Adopters or those identified by Adopters as a source of the proposal who
will be invited to provide additional information. If outside experts
are involved to speak in policy fora or to provide guest articles, it
will be on the understanding that this is to meet the requests for
information from Adopters on existing suggestions or priority issues.
Policies from outside experts will only have
status in SP if submitted by Adopters (if experts wish to become
Adopters to submit their proposals, so much the better). If the Policy
Committee does decide it is relevant to consult experts or expert bodies
on policy content in the future it will first draw up appropriate terms
of reference to be approved by Adopters through the democratic
structures that are steadily evolving.
The Policy Committee noted that those who
attended the Consultation meeting were concerned that there was
insufficient time for discussion of policy process issues and the Policy
Committee will ensure this is taken into account when future
Consultation meetings are arranged.
See the sheet Developing the Simultaneous Policy
in the campaign pack for further information.
Policy proposals
- voting open until 14 November 2007
The following policies are not made as a
definitive statement of policy but are suggestions from SP Adopters'
Groups and individual Adopters.
You can vote on them on this page until 14
November 2007. The results of voting will be used to prioritise coverage
of issues in future newsletters and policy fora and for listing
suggestions on this page. You can discuss the suggestions by following
the link labelled 'more' by each suggestion, where there is also an
indicative vote that has been running since the last annual vote.
For further details on the policy development
process, see the summary below.
Top
