It can have negative consequences whereby citizens may not comply with policy mandate intentionally or unintentionally. They may try to find loopholes in it or try to work around it even through illegal means. This can have socio-economic ramifications. Hence consultation and sensitisation is very important in policy formulation.

Dear Adetayo Olaniyi Adeniran,

My viewpoints are summarized below:-

1) Participation of citizens/activists/civil society during the policy formulation is the an effective way to garner general acceptability by the citizens.

2) Similarly, the formulated policy (through citizens' participation) when implemented through the support / participation of citizens results in best policy outcomes. It also further enhances the acceptability by the policy by the citizens.

3) The participation of citizens during policy formulation and implementation phase not only increases its acceptability but it also improves the quality of formulation and implementation.

Forcing policy implementation on citizens may increase the cost of implementation and may not fetch the desired outcomes.

The history of civilization provides examples of who, why, what, when, and where including the outcomes. There are also numerous examples occurring now.

The main purpose of a policy is to solve a social problem for the wellbeing of citizen to improve the socioeconomic development of the country at large. Therefore a policy is to better solve a problem, stakeholders must be consulted to know the root causes of the problem and handle it as such.

From this view, it could be said that citizens may not accept a particular policy when they perceive that they were not consulted to take their views into consideration. There is possibility of them thinking that it is in the interest of the policy makers, not them.

The main negative implication of this is that there will be a low tendency of the policy achieving its purpose. Therefore that problem would continue to exist and have the adverse effect it had on the people when it was not handle.

This is the main reason why government officials and policy makers have to consult stakeholders when formulating a policy for citizens to feel a part of the policy and accept as theirs but not imposed on them.

@Rosemary Duodu This is quite elaborate. Thank you

When you force policy implementation on citizens, regardless of how good the policy is, it will be met with objection and diviance by the citizens.

The policy goals and general success will be compromised.

If you want to put in a policy perspective, I believe you may find more literature based backing for this if you delve deeper into Multiple Streams Framework in the policy perspective.

I am going to construct an answer based on this theory of policymaking. Any policy requires the coupling of different streams including the political stream which consists of surrounding political factors for example any policy on waste management would require the people to be aware of the issue and believe in its urgency.

Similarly, the two other streams i.e. the policy stream and the problem stream are equally important too. Your question is regarding the political stream as citizens usually form part of the political stream. MSF has posited in several papers and through case studies that the adoption of a policy is dependent upon the coupling of these three streams along with the emergence of a policy entrepreneur.

A useful theorist you could consult on imposing knowledge on citizens such that it is oppressive is Paulo Freire. You might consider the praxis he proposes to overcome knowledge imposition (my view is that while his praxis may be broadly applicable, it is probably more useful in the global south, where authoritarianism and linked oppression are likely to be more common)

Quite often, the policy is not formulated at all, but is implemented according to informal agreements between its subjects. Then, most often, citizens understand that such a policy is being implemented against their interests and they do not trust it. Distrust also arises when the formulated policy is not approved by citizens also because of the contradiction with their interests. Citizens' distrust of the policy being implemented always leads to their refusal to accept such a policy and participate in it. And this in turn leads to the fact that politics is becoming more and more authoritarian in order to force citizens to obey it. In some countries, revolutions with changes of political regimes took place in response.

In most countries policy implementation is preceded by public participation and that process will determine the acceptance of the policy. Unpopular policy leads to defiance. An example in South Africa is the e-tolls wherein most motorists are in defiance.

With public participation (PP) I suspect much depend on whether Government makes up its mind about policy in advance and then offers PP as tokenism (eg consultation without actually listening and being responsive). In short, there is need for PP as structured levels of dialogue between govt and people, and if this can be done in an equitable and culturally conducive way that seeks the common good of all (ubuntu perhaps?) then it is more likely to prove more acceptable and legitimate, and thus 'work'. PP needs some mobilising and structuring (of voice) to avoid government 'dividing and ruling' - and thus dominating or oppressing the people - so they can justify their imposition of policies (because 'we the people' are not free to reach agreement on the policy), and thus duck/sidestep democratic accountability to the people.

Key relevant actions are:- Stakeholders' participation during policy formulation stage, advocacy before and during implementation, and periodic review of the outcomes.

A responsible government will prioritize citizens' inclusiveness in policy formulation and implementation.

Policy rejection and.possible failure

Nowadays, the motto of collective life is the participation of all citizens in making decisions on issues that may affect their lives. Therefore, participation is the keyword. However, the non-participation of citizens in the elaboration of public policies may lead to their unsustainability and these policies may not have the desired support from society and may simply be refused or neglected.

Resentment! Imposed policy implementations can result to citizens resentment on authorities until such time those citizens come to realize that the forced implementation of policy benefits the people and will be for the common good of its community.

Generally, it is good to conduct public engagement/consultation with general public and identified advocates to gather their views/suggestion if there is no time constraint. This can facilitate & value add to policy makers' fine tuning the intended policy, aid Comms for acceptance.

forced policy implementations maybe contingent. But it is always ideal, proper and lawful to consult the people regarding policies.

Forced Policy implementation sounds like Mandate. The idea that a mandate is declared arouses distrust and thoughts of losing free will, freedom, and democracy. In settings with an authoritarian government, Citizens do not have the opportunity to protest safely. Dictatorship and monarchy are also rulers who implement by force. The implications are civil unrest, rebellion, regime change exploited by foreign interests, and the triggering of mental and chemical biological responses associated with the forced policy.

• It will not come up the desired goals. it is necessary to create awareness of fertility of the policy. It is desirable fact that citizens want democratic behaviour.It is need of time to make negotiation for the betterment.

It is a very complicated issue. The first thing that must always be understood is that a non-consensual policy will be much more difficult to accept than a consensual one. In fact, anything that is imposed without the support of the beneficiaries of such a policy is very likely to fail. At the other extreme, it is also true that people do not understand a policy that they have never experienced, and they prefer policies that have never achieved their goal, rather than one that they do not know, which is also a problem. It is in the balance between these two points where we will find progress, but it is a very difficult balance to achieve.

In several instances, this top-bottom approach has shown to be ineffective over time. Many stagnant policies are in a comatose state because they lack the buy in of the people who are at the receiving end of such policies. Regardless of how "good" the intentions are, such policies could be a misplaced priority and perceived as having little or no value as far as the target beneficiaries are concerned. Policies should be developed in a consultative process to enhance mutual understanding and acceptability.