Every policy in a country is ultimately made by human beings.
It may be formulated by ministers, civil servants, legislators, committees or experts, and expressed as legislation, regulations, guidelines or administrative practices.
It may be justified by reference to national interests, economic objectives, social stability, history or political realities.
Yet policies are ultimately experienced by people – children, women and men of different ethnicities, religions and social backgrounds. They are real human beings with fears, hopes, families, ambitions and challenges of their own.
A decision made in an office can have legal, economic, social and psychological consequences for someone who had no part whatsoever in making that decision.
A mature society must never lose sight of this reality.
Consider especially the position of a child. A child does not choose the circumstances into which she is born. She does not choose her ethnicity, the religion of her parents, their economic circumstances or the historical events that occurred decades before her birth.
Yet policies influenced by these matters may shape much of her childhood.
They may affect where she studies, the opportunities available to her, how others perceive her and how she eventually perceives herself and her place in the country of her birth.
Over time, policies can shape confidence, belonging, resentment, hope and even the psychology of generations.
This does not mean that every policy producing an unequal outcome is necessarily unjust. Governments have to make difficult choices.
Resources are finite, competing interests have to be balanced, and particular communities may genuinely require assistance.
Historical circumstances may also justify special measures, sometimes for substantial periods.
But justification cannot become immunity from reconsideration.
Policies are created in particular circumstances, and circumstances change. Economies, educational levels, demographics and social relationships change.
Good governance therefore requires the courage to ask whether a policy still achieves its original purpose and whether its present consequences remain justifiable.
A policy may have had a legitimate historical basis and yet produce undesirable consequences decades later.
Another may remain necessary in principle but require reform in its implementation.
A policy intended to assist one group may eventually produce unintended consequences for that group or unfairness towards another.
There is nothing disloyal about asking such questions. History deserves to be understood and respected, but it should not become an excuse for avoiding present realities.
We cannot justify unnecessary suffering today merely by pointing to circumstances that existed yesterday.
The important question is whether a policy continues to promote the general well-being of the nation and its people. In answering it, we should be particularly attentive to cruelty.
Cruelty need not always involve physical violence. A system can be cruel when it unnecessarily diminishes human dignity, closes doors to a child because of circumstances beyond her control, creates persistent feelings of exclusion, or imposes burdens without sufficient contemporary justification.
Such cruelty may not be intended, but that does not make its consequences less real.
A mature, wise and fair society should therefore examine not merely the intentions behind its policies but their effects.
Who benefits? Who carries the burden? Is that burden necessary? Does the policy still achieve its purpose? Are there less harmful ways of achieving the same objective?
If we were personally among those adversely affected, would we still regard the policy as fair?
Such questions require empathy, which can easily disappear when policy becomes entangled with politics.
Politicians worry about electoral consequences. Vested interests defend advantages to which they have become accustomed.
Communities may fear that reconsidering an existing arrangement means surrendering something to somebody else. Public debate then becomes a contest of slogans in which those affected by our decisions become almost invisible.
There is another uncomfortable truth we should recognise. Nations often describe themselves in flattering terms.
We speak about unity, fairness, progress and justice. We invoke civilisation, culture and, sometimes, religion. Political and religious rhetoric can be powerful in shaping how we see ourselves and the society we believe we have created.
The more meaningful test is what we actually do.
A society may speak endlessly about compassion, justice and human dignity, but those claims ring hollow if its policies unnecessarily inflict hardship, humiliation or exclusion upon sections of its own people.
Public policy is therefore a mirror of our humanity. The policies we design, retain and implement reveal whether the values we proclaim are also the values by which we are prepared to govern.
Citizens must remain vigilant. We should not allow political calculations or vested interests to prevent the evolution of more compassionate and effective national policies.
Compassion does not mean abandoning practicality, nor does fairness require pretending that everyone begins life in identical circumstances.
Good policy may require different forms of assistance for people in different circumstances.
But such distinctions should have a rational purpose, be capable of periodic reassessment and serve human welfare rather than become permanent political possessions.
Ultimately, a policy should not be defended simply because it has existed for a long time or because changing it is politically difficult.
The proper question is whether it continues to serve the public good without imposing harm that can no longer reasonably be justified.
The maturity of a nation is also reflected in its willingness to reconsider its choices as circumstances change.
That requires us to look beyond history, slogans, politics and rhetoric, and remember the lives of the people who must live with the decisions we make.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent those of Twentytwo13.
