WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY IMAGINATION AND ACTUALISATION OF POLITICAL WILL POWER?
Answers
Answer:
As Peter Tagney has already said in his answer, this question is a very broad one of which much has been written in the policy science fields. I would just like to add that the term “political will” (like “neoliberalism,” “power,” and even “democracy,” among many other ambiguous terms) needs a more precise definition when asking a question in the social sciences because its meaning is far from universally agreed upon.
Assuming you mean something like the willingness or capability of political leaders to see that a policy they publicly advocated actually gets implemented, and outcomes achieved, in the way they imagined when they went through the trouble of advocating something, a reasonably large and interesting body of literature focusing on policy implementation has been developing within the policy studies field, starting with Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1973) analysis of the failures of otherwise popular anti-poverty programs of the War on Poverty era, the book in which they introduced the proposition that implementation failure may be the norm, and success the exception, in most cases of collective action, even where there is little opposition. Among others, two useful models or frameworks for answering your question come from Paul Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and from Richard Matland’s ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation.
Sabatier's ACF theorizes that policy outcomes, and changes thereof, are the continuous result of ongoing power contests between coalitions made up of actors united by three levels of common beliefs and interests: deep, social psychological core beliefs; policy core interests in a given policy; and secondary (or strategic) interests in a given outcome. Whether a given policy gets implemented can thus be thought of as the result of the continued dominance, or not, of the coalition that championed a given policy initiative or change within the relatively small universe of people who are interested enough to be politically active in a given issue. Identifying the factors of importance for successful implementation or not of a given policy change requires identification of the competing coalitions, their members, and the relevant resources, attributes and parameters of both coalition members and the contest space itself. These factors are likely to vary greatly, so they must be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine what might help or impede the champions of a given policy from seeing it successfully implemented and the real, desired outcomes achieved.
Unlike the ACF, Matland's ambiguity-conflict model has generated relatively little subsequent research to test its propositions, but it provides a conceptually simple and elegant way to categorize policy changes and the strategies required for successful implementation. Applying a simple game theory construction, policies can be categorized along two axes: high or low ambiguity, and high or low levels of conflict. Ambiguity refers to how easy the objectives of a policy and the methods for achieving them are understood by all concerned, and conflict refers to the degree of agreement with, or opposition to, the policy change at hand by all stakeholders affected by the change or charged with implementing it. This creates four quadrants of possible outcomes, each requiring different factors for successful implementation. In uncontroversial, well-understood policy changes, only provision of sufficient resources to see the policy implemented is required. However, in otherwise popular but less well understood policy changes, there are likely to be many opportunities for stakeholders and bureaucrats charged implementation to significantly change the policy, through negotiated outcomes among themselves, in ways that are significantly different from the designs of the people originally championing a given program or legislation. When ambiguity is low, but opposition is high, the resources and ability to compel cooperation – power – of the championing actors to overcome opposition determines whether implementation will occur or not (school busing is the example used). And when a policy change is both ambiguous as well as highly controversial, symbolic policy strategies are common for political leaders, leaving any legislated policy changes to be significantly changed as the result of ongoing contests between competing coalitions over how to implement it, such as described in the explanation of the ACF theory above. In other words, political leaders or legislators deliberately elect to advocate for a given policy change only in broad terms, leaving the real policy changes still to be fought out during implementation by people more concerned with the policy at hand. Environmental policy, such as climate change policies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, may be a good example of high ambiguity-high conflict policies, as is immigration policy.
Using imagination to politics can lead to a political will power. Politics is the work of art and it will power you by imagine all the work before you apply to the citizen. Not all imagination will result in good politics such as day dreaming that doesn’t have any actual product. It is an ability to form an image within you and such meaningful scenes should be able to drive external work in a real world. This imagination should be limited which are related to politics.