Do We Even Have a Chance to Make Good Decisions in Politics?

Political decision-making is messy. It's full of competing interests, incomplete information, and short-term incentives that often leave us wondering: are we actually making progress, or just spinning our wheels? This raises a provocative question: do we even have a chance to make good decisions in politics?

Good, quality decisions are built on a solid process—one that is proven by science and best practice in decision-making. The D.R.I.V.E. framework is based on the principles of Decision Quality and provides a systematic approach to achieve this, consisting of five clear steps:

1. Define the Frame (What is the problem?) - Clearly defining the problem is the foundation of good decision-making. It ensures everyone understands what is at stake and what needs to be solved, without biases or hidden agendas. In politics, however, problems are often framed to suit specific narratives, obscuring the true root causes.
2. Range of Options (What can we do?) - A quality decision requires considering a full range of options. In politics, viable alternatives are frequently sidelined if they don't align with party interests or public sentiment, reducing the scope of potential solutions.
3. Identify Objectives (What do we want?) - Identifying clear objectives helps to align actions with desired outcomes. Political decision-making often lacks clear, agreed-upon objectives, leading to inconsistent policies driven by short-term gains rather than long-term benefits.
4. Variables and Drivers (What do we know?) - Understanding what we know and the factors influencing the situation is critical. In politics, decisions are too often made with incomplete or biased information, ignoring important variables that could shape better outcomes.
5. Evaluate with a Model (What do we get?) - Finally, evaluating options with a model helps forecast outcomes and trade-offs. In politics, this step is rarely transparent or comprehensive, often influenced by ideological biases rather than objective analysis.

Instead of following these steps, political decision-making is often reactive, driven by short-term pressures, public perception, and vested interests. The focus is on managing optics rather than optimizing outcomes.

Why don’t we have a chance to make good decisions in politics? Human psychology and institutional incentives play a huge role. Political decisions are often driven by fast, emotional thinking—what Daniel Kahneman calls “System One” mode—where immediate, gut reactions dominate, and cognitive shortcuts are used to navigate complexity. This is reinforced by structural incentives: electoral cycles, partisan politics, and the need to cater to public sentiment all work against the careful, deliberate analysis needed for quality decision-making.

The inevitable consequences of this flawed approach are decisions that prioritize short-term gains over long-term well-being. Policy becomes focused on winning elections, appeasing interest groups, or satisfying immediate public demands rather than ensuring a prosperous, sustainable future. This can lead to underinvestment in critical areas like climate policy, infrastructure, and education—issues that require long-term, evidence-based approaches but are consistently sacrificed for political expediency.

What can we do to bring these principles into politics and societal decision-making, where the stakes are even higher than in business? Could structured, thoughtful decision-making truly untangle the complexities of politics and help us move towards solutions that work—not just for the next election, but for the next generation?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this—how can we bring more structured, thoughtful decision-making into politics? Or is that just wishful thinking?