Embracing Agile Governance: Why Political U-Turns Should Be Seen as Iterations
In a recent exchange at Prime Minister's Questions, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the government over perceived U-turns on digital ID plans. This incident highlights a pervasive issue in British politics: the tendency to view policy flexibility as a weakness rather than a strength.
The Problem with Political Rigidity
Alan Ogilvie, a product manager from Manchester, argues that this rigid approach to governance is fundamentally flawed. He suggests that politicians could learn valuable lessons from the world of technology and product management, where adaptation is celebrated rather than condemned.
"We have created a political culture that treats flexibility as a character flaw," writes Ogilvie. This culture is perpetuated by media scrutiny and public expectations that demand unwavering consistency from political leaders.
Learning from Tech Industry Practices
In the technology sector, the traditional "waterfall" approach has largely been abandoned. This method involved setting detailed plans in stone from the outset, often leading to:
- Significant delays in project delivery
- Expensive failures when circumstances changed
- Inflexibility in responding to new data or feedback
Instead, modern product management embraces "lean" and "agile" methodologies. These approaches involve:
- Establishing a clear vision and objectives
- Building initial versions or prototypes
- Gathering feedback from users and stakeholders
- Making iterative improvements based on evidence
- Pivoting when necessary to achieve better outcomes
Applying Agile Principles to Governance
The digital ID debate serves as a perfect example of where agile thinking could transform political discourse. Rather than focusing on whether one supports or opposes the specific proposals, Ogilvie suggests we should concentrate on the methodology of governance itself.
"In any other professional field, a refusal to adapt to new feedback or technical reality is considered a failure," he observes. Yet in politics, changing course is often portrayed as indecisiveness or lack of direction.
A Call for Collaborative Politics
Ogilvie proposes a more constructive approach to parliamentary opposition. Instead of simply waiting to shout "U-turn!" at perceived policy changes, opposition parties could work collaboratively with the government to refine and improve legislative "products."
This would require a significant cultural shift in Westminster, where:
- Policy adaptation is seen as evidence-based improvement
- Cross-party collaboration becomes more valued
- The focus shifts from scoring political points to achieving better outcomes
The Real Danger: Refusal to Adapt
Ultimately, Ogilvie argues that we should be far more concerned about governments that refuse to listen and adapt than those willing to refine their plans based on new evidence. "A change in course shouldn't be seen as a sign of a weak heart – it is usually the sign of a working brain," he concludes.
This perspective challenges the traditional adversarial nature of British politics and suggests that embracing iterative approaches could lead to more effective governance and better policy outcomes for the nation.
