THE ROLES OF REASON IN POLITICAL DECISION MAKING

Amaka Patricia Nwana, PhD, Fidelis Oghenero Ejegbavwo, PhD

Abstract


The Political decision making comes in various processes and are shaped by numerous factors, including ideological beliefs, public opinion, and institutional constraints. Cardinal to this process is the role of reason—the ability for logical, rational thought—which communicates choices and drives policy outcomes. This paper delves into the complex roles of reason in political decision making, examining how rationality influences the decision-making processes of political actors, its impact on policy outcomes, and the challenges associated with relying solely on reason in political contexts. Through an exploration of empirical studies and theoretical frameworks, it contends that while reason is pivotal in guiding political decisions, it is often susceptible to biases, emotional influences, and external pressures. Understanding this intricate interplay between reason and other factors is paramount for improving the quality and legitimacy of political decision making. The analysis underscores the importance of recognizing the complexities inherent in political decision making and the need to navigate the tensions between reason and other influences. By acknowledging the limitations of rationality and incorporating insights from behavioral economics and psychology, policymakers can adopt more informed and effective decision-making strategies. Furthermore, the paper emphasizes the significance of fostering environments conducive to rational deliberation and critical thinking, thereby mitigating the impact of biases and ensuring more reasoned political outcomes. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of the roles of reason in political decision making is essential for promoting democratic governance and addressing contemporary challenges. In summary, this paper provides a comprehensive examination of the multifaceted roles of reason in political decision making, highlighting its significance, limitations, and interplay with other factors. By grappling with the complexities of rationality and embracing insights from interdisciplinary perspectives, policy-makers can enhance the quality and legitimacy of their decisions, thereby advancing the public interest and promoting democratic values.


Keywords


Reason, Political Decision Making, Rationality, Policy, Biases.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.

Bardach, E. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. CQ Press.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Penguin Books.

Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press.

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper.

Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Macmillan.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.

Macedo, S. (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation, and what we can do about it. Brookings Institution Press.

Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes”. Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628-657.

Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., &MacKuen, M. B. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.

Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., &Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. Wadsworth.

Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. W. W. Norton & Company.

Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.

Weiss, C. H. (2018). Evaluation. Routledge.

Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Routledge.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Amaka Patricia Nwana, PhD, Fidelis Oghenero Ejegbavwo, PhD

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ISSN (Print):   2695-2319

ISSN (Online): 2695-2327

 

 

   

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.