Polis Model
The polis model is a theory of policy politics that uses an analogy of markets to explain the political organization of societies. The theory contrasts the organization of markets to show its difference with political structures. It uses the community (polis) as the unit of political organization (Stone 19). Stone uses the market model because it is a dominant concept in discussing policy decisions in governments. The theory claims that the common use of the market model is a method of distorting politics since the two are not related. It explains that the issues that are relevant in the market do not interest politics. For example, the market model insists that people act to maximize their self-interest. The need to maximize their welfare encourages an individual to be innovative, resourceful, creative, productive, and competitive. The competition that arises in society raises the level of the economic wellbeing of all members of society. According to Stone, the polis model contrasts market theory because it considers the interests of larger groups in society. Therefore, Stone insists that it is possible to develop a political theory that contrasts the market model that is known by most people.
The polis model avers that policies emerge from communities and influence the politics that people can pursue. When a community comes together, it agrees about its priorities. After that, they elect officials who can represent these ideas to local, state, and federal offices. One of the main challenges that the polis model addresses is the issue of community and its composition. All communities have a way of determining their members and the process that interested individuals can use to become members. After determining membership, they formulate communal goals and the roadmap to achieving them (Stone 21). Therefore, a polis model differs from a market one because the latter does not have communal objectives apart from the needs of the individuals. Therefore, public policy must determine the collective will of the people and develop responses that address specific needs.
Most communities have methods of defining who is a member and who is not. Membership in a society is a political issue. The definition determines the individual who participates in community activities as well as in upholding its rules. Today, nation-states have laws on who is a citizen and how to achieve it. The laws explain the civil and social rights that the members enjoy as well as their duties to the state. At the same time, a polis model must distinguish between a political community and a cultural one. Cultural community refers to a group of people that share a language, traditions, and history (Stone 21). Some political societies have several cultural groups to deal with, and meeting the needs of each group becomes the business of the nation-state to address. Thus, the membership to a community is very critical in determining the economic, political, and social rights of a person.
The Polis model departs significantly from market theories by concentrating more on the public rather than individual interest. In most cases, public interest matters refer to things such as good schools, low taxes, health care facilities, clean environment, among others. The implementation of public interest programs requires citizens and leaders to build consensus. Governments can only implement programs that are popular with the majority of the citizens for lack of unanimity. A lot of politics revolves around the idea of consensus building because people are always fighting about the definition of what is public interest (Stone 124). Therefore, the issue of public interest is at the center of the polis model; the same way individual interests are to the market theory.
Apart from the community, there are other important issues that the “polis model” addresses. For example, cooperation, loyalty, and influence play an essential role in society. Influence is inherent in communities in determining self-interest and public interest. Ideas about what people need are shaped by education and socialization (Stone 27). As a result, communities’ needs are influenced by what the majority consider as important. After that, the people who are loyal to the community champion it among their peers as they seek alliances to accomplish their desires. These processes influence the type of public policies that are implemented.
Stone’s model explains a lot about the behavior of citizens living in communities. It is distinguished between political and cultural communities making it easy to appreciate the political interests of specific groups of citizens. Most communities face common problems and pursue the desire to address them together, and that is why they elect representative to champion their interests at the state and federal levels. In the polis model, the common interest is all that matter as they do not affect a single individual. In the polis, the interests are mediated by other factors such as cooperation, loyalty, and influence in political spaces. In most cases, basic ideas are formed through the influence of society through socialization, education, and persuasion (Stone 127). Others take place through cooperation and the building of alliances between political parties and leaders. At the same time, people gain the support of others through loyalty to a cause. In return, they get favors, gifts, and support. Thus, Stone’s model insists that what matters to citizens in communities is their interests that are either political or cultural.
The concept of the “Polis Model” applies to the character of national politics in Congress. After learning about the idea, one can appreciate why lawmakers behave in particular ways when debating in Congress and public places. In some instances, political leaders make decisions that surprise their electorate, but learning about their interests is critical to understanding their behavior. Although members of Congress represent various communities and are supposed to represent their interests, at times, they make decisions that do not serve their communities. Despite working hard to get the support of several communities in their constituencies, at times, they go against the grain and support unpopular motions. In some cases, the leaders are under pressure from conflicting interests. At the national level, many public and private interests come to play, demanding the attention of the lawmakers. All of the interests are relevant to respective representatives, but in some cases, they have to forgo some local needs during debates to achieve broader consensus to benefit the country.
Leaders at the national level are always confronted with the need to balance public and private interests in the enactment of laws. In some cases, political leaders get the support of private institutions during elections. Some leaders are forced to vote against public interest bills and motions as they pursue individual interests to retain their legislative seats. Thus, the “Polis Model” explains the challenges that leaders face in deciding the bills and motions to support at the national level. In some cases, they pursue self-interests as espoused by the market models or public interest, depending on the needs of their electorate. Therefore, it is crucial to learn the motivation that makes leaders make particular decisions to avoid blaming them for abandoning the electorate.
Work Cited
Stone, Deborah. “Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company” (2002).