Three notes previously posted on LinkedIn about drafting policy submissions, the first in response to students asking for advice, the other two following responses to the advice:
Note 1:
I had a few students approach me about how to write policy briefs... Some competition, as I understand it. So, just leaving this here in case it's useful to anyone. It isn't authoritative, just an overview of how I see things, FWIW.
1. There is usually no format or template. Do what works for you and your client. The basic intention should be to make life as easy as possible for the reader. So, where you can: tabulate content, use white space, use clear sections; a large block of text is not easy to parse. And maybe consider an executive summary.
2. No-one really has the time to read 15 pages of background history, and, frankly, with the number of people who will put it in anyway, there's zero chance that the final arbiters of the document will be unfamiliar with the subject. So it's best to keep this part short, use footnotes liberally and, if there's a comparative analysis between jurisdictions, clearly signpost what's what. Also, stick to the actual law here so that if your reader bypasses it entirely, it does your argument no harm.
3. If you're looking at a bill, e.g., PRIORITISE. Figure out what the most important issues are for your client and focus on them, or for the country, if that's your aim. Putting in 50 issues and burying 3 critical ones somewhere in the middle is effectively going to guarantee that the 3 critical issues are virtually impossible to find. Put the 3 issues front and center, and either ignore the rest or dump them in an appendix. Esp. if they're of the "there's a typo here" variety.
4. Morality has its place but it needs to be tied in with the law. There is a large field where you can fit in moral arguments: Indian law has tended to look towards a Hegelian concept of public interest, it has resisted dominant narratives from the West (e.g. TPM), and it has forged almost completely new paths (e.g. disability, authors' continuing royalties). Emotive language is best toned down esp. if you're making arguments that don't have any solid moral counter (e.g. people with disabilities should be able to access culture unimpeded). Also, tie in what you're saying with international treaties to highlight that even if you're suggesting something "outlandish", it's not going to violate India's international obligations.
5. If your suggestions are likely to have some weird fallouts, admit them upfront along with how you see their being addressed or contained. Someone else will anyway likely bring them up so don't pretend that they don't exist.
6. If it's possible, talk not just about how the law should be or what principles you think it should follow but exactly what language could potentially be included in legislation or policy. This helps readers visualise exactly how you see the law in action.
Ultimately, getting policy work done is collaborative even if you have fiercely opposing viewpoints. There is going to be just one piece of legislation or regulation or policy. Do what you can to get it to work for everyone.
Note 2:
re this [Note 1 above], https://lnkd.in/dWQ29hPi, I've been told that it should include the suggestion that policy proposals be evidence-backed. I understand the fear of rhetoric-driven policy but I've not highlighted the need for evidence because, to my mind, it's obvious that when there is useful evidence, you put it in.
That said, there are also times when evidence is limited or hard to access. And that shouldn't impede a solid proposal.
One example: I remember working on a submission against the two-finger test (way back when it was actually a thing) along with two other people. A lady into governance who is one of the most brilliant, empathetic people around, and a doctor who spent a good deal of time ensuring that the document made sense.
I don't recall there being much by way of evidence beyond a clear explanation of the test being worthless. And I don't believe that evidence in the sense of surveys and impact assessments would have been appropriate. What would one have done? Talked to women to confirm that the test is nonsense and exposed them to secondary trauma? To medics who'd often been trained using a 19th C forensic science text? Neither option would have been worth pursuing, and not pursuing them didn't detract from the submission.
There are times when 'evidence' is appropriate. There are also times when it isn't. What's important is that proposals be well substantited whatever form that substantiation takes.
('Evidence' is often understood as being hard, quantitative data which is why I'm so resistant to saying it's necessary. Linking to a piece I wrote about this several years ago here; it's old but I don't recall my views having changed since I posted it in 2018:
Note 3:
One last quick note on policy specifically re 498A:
1. I have often asked about how much misuse there is — I've never made any claim about the exact % of misuse myself but I have often faced the “99% misuse” claim, and I do think that a person making a claim with a specific percentage mentioned should be able to defend it.
2. Speaking for myself, I don't know what the numbers are. My feeling is that there is significant misuse in a sliver of upper-middle class urban India and even more non-use elsewhere. I don't know what the numbers are but am aware that documentation of the occurrence of domestic violence is staggeringly different depending on whether one looks at it through crime reports or through family health surveys.
3. I do tell those who ask me to comment on 498A papers (or their new counterparts) to first spend at least 15 minutes outside the burns ward of any public hospital. I don't think that's unfair; if you're old enough to advocate against it, you should be old enough to develop at least a vague understanding of why the section was introduced at all.
4. I find it fascinating that every single anti-498A piece I've seen advocates getting rid of the section itself rather than specifically targetting misuse. They may exist but I've never come across one which speaks of addressing misuse by finding credible and fair ways to enforce perjury laws or which explores how ‘498A as a strategy’ could specifically be suppressed; I'd be all for either.
There's no movement to address insurance fraud, e.g., by scrapping insurance. Not really sure why most suggestions to counter 498A misuse invariably seem to require scrapping 498A.