WAR ON DRUGS: A POLITICAL CRUSADE An analysis of parliamentary proceedings for the Psychoactive Substance Act 2016.
BACKGROUND
The interaction of evidence and policy is influenced by many contextual factors making it complex and nonlinear (Cairney, 2016). Steven Lukes defines power as “A will exercise power over B….by influencing shaping or determining his very wants” (Lukes, 2005).
It is argued that policy formation is construed on set agendas and interest of political actors attempting to facilitate certain evidence-based documents and impeding others (Clapp & Fuchs, 2009).
Steven Lukes theory of power was used to explore this discourse of government policy making with respect to the psychoactive substance act 2016 (PSA 2016).
METHODS
A critical discourse analysis combined with steven Lukes 1st & 3rd dimension of power was performed on all the parliamentary proceedings for PSA 2016. The 2nd dimension will be used to analyse qualitative interviews in the next stage of project.
A total of 13 parliamentary debates along with 38 evidence documents analysed in 3 phases.
1. Textual analysis: identifying themes in debates from both the houses.
2. Contextual analysis : identifying author of evidence, context, powerful actors’ interactions and coalitions engaged in debates.
3. Reflexive interpretation: examining underlying norms, histories and ideologies supporting criminalization and blanket ban approaches to manage drug abuse in the UK.
RESULTS
Using an empirically viable power concept is necessary to understand the multiple interactions between actors’ beliefs and impaction of power on the development of the PSA 2016 was noted. Under the 1st dimension of power, the prominent themes identified from the textual and contextual analysis were: ruling government (conservatives) and political actors’ instrumental capacity in promoting criminalization and a blanket ban approach, biases involved in the use of evidence to avoid promoting harm reduction strategies. The 3rd dimension of power highlighted constitutive power of norms and ideological assumptions, being prioritized under the facade of technological progressivism, neoliberalism, and scientific expertise (Tourangeau, 2017).
CONCLUSIONS
An empirically oriented actor centered power framework is needed to identify hidden (backdoor machinations and institutional organizations) and visible power (controlled use of evidence) to provide structural discursive empowerment to political actors. This will help avoid reproducing biases in policy reformation processes and lead to effective solutions to discourses (Hathaway, 2016).
