What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Policy Making Process? What Constitutional Questions Do They Raise? What Constitutional Changes Are Needed to Address These Questions?

The policy making process in CA plays an instrumental role in the prosperity and quality of life that exist today, and will exist in the future for CA. Public policy can be defined as a public response to public problems. It's what the government says and does about these problems. Policy is when government and nongovernmental agents work together to create solutions for the public at large. The policy actors are formal, as well as informal; they are individuals or groups, which bring about the influence needed to implement public solutions.

There are numerous issues within CA that are increasing the strain placed on the policy making process. The biggest challenge CA faces in the next few decades is meeting the needs of a growing population. It is estimated that by 2020 CA's population is going to expand to surpass 45 million people. How is the policy process going to create an infrastructure to accommodate the needs of a not only an expanding, but also a largely socially diverse population? There are going to be strings pulled in so many directions, that the policy making process is going to have a very difficult time efficiently making decisions to deal with pressing problems. And, the scary part about all this, is the fact that the policy making process is basically a game.

Policy actors are using every means possible to get the results they want, and they aren't necessarily representing the public interest. They have strategies that they use to maximize their interests. The essential skills needed are bureaucratic knowledge, networking (or access to individuals within the bureaucracy), an understanding of the size of constituency, money for political contributions, and the resources to mount a media driven campaign. But ever all this isn't enough; they also need to know all the rules and the culture of the policy environment.

The strengths of the policy making process are few, but worth mentioning. One of the strengths of the policy making process lies in the Executive Branch. Our CA constitution requires that seven non governor related individuals are elected directly, which limits the power of the governor. This is to ensure that the governor doesn't have the ability to implement the policies he wants, limiting his power to the power of using influence, and persuasion; to get ideas moving through the legislature. The legislature has the ability to make the laws, while the Governor can only recommend laws. Governors can also expand their influence through the judicial bureaucracies and executive branch via appointments of like minded players. A recent example of how the executive branch has taken some of the power out of the hands of the governor is the recent initiative Arnold was trying to put on the ballot. Because Arnold had to have petitions out on the streets, and the people saw what was going on, it wasn't behind closed office doors, they had time to react, and express their opposition, and force Arnold to take his initiative back to review until the people are happy with what is being presented.

Moreover, there is yet another positive aspect to the policy making process in CA. It is the ability of individuals in our government to build up massive strength and make decisions that can represent the people in CA. But, this also brings up one of the biggest problems with our policy making process, the fact that more so than not, the individuals in our society that possess the ability to create change and make decisions on we the citizens behalf, are not doing so in our interests.

There are many weaknesses in the policy making process, most of them are constitutional ones involving the double edged sword of our supposed democratic society, and our government that is supposed to ensure it is so. It is said that the US is a democracy. Thus, within the state of CA everyone should be entitled to an opinion and vote, and it should be of equal influence. But this is definitely not the case in policy making. The democratic processes are dominated by the influence of economic elites. Money is the name of the game, and financial power is the basis of policy influence. In order to create the best political strategy, there is no question that you must have the ability to raise a lot of funds.

The CA constitution says that governmental authority is to be shared with the voters. They should have the ability to voice their opinions through the initiative process, the recall, and the referendum. However, the input of the people in CA is muffled by the glass ceiling we the minorities face. You might be wondering how we are the minority. We are the minority in CA because we don't have the money to represent ourselves, and so we are left out in the cold. This is a problem because we are the individuals in society that have the first hand experience, and the knowledge needed to educate our political actors on the areas within society that need to be addressed for changes. Changes that could affect the lives of every individual; we make up the largest part of the population of the state, we are the foundation that supports our society, and we're the ones that are left out. The process adopted within the policy making infrastructure today, dedicates access to those who are economically elite in CA. Unless minorities are given the means to be heard by political actors, the instabilities in the foundation of our society will continue to be ignored, and CA's future success will remain unpredictable.

Within the legislature there is a lot of discretion in defining, implementing, and enforcing policies. There is also a lot of influence within the executive bureaucracy. This is because those who are best able to use their influence, which is money, in the regulatory process; involving things like values, agency subculture, interests groups, economic issues and legislative committees and sub-committees.

Likewise, the judicial branch in CA has a lot of power in policy making. They are very susceptible to scrutiny by the public for decisions they make, and the policy decisions that they make have substantial implications. There is a lot of debate regarding judicial activism versus judicial restraint. It is argued that judicial activism infringes on the democratic policy institutions, and can corrode the faith and esteem the people hold for the judiciary.

There are also problems regarding interest groups. The influence of interest groups threatens the democratic basis of our government. Interest groups, which tend to represent