We tend to imagine policymaking in a simple way. We like to believe that the process is highly technical: politicians gather evidence on different issues, evaluate options, and make decisions based on that evidence. It’s a reassuring picture—logical, structured, and objective.
But it doesn’t quite match how things actually work.
In reality, policy change is rarely just a matter of having the right data. Timing matters. Attention matters. And both are closely tied to how people feel, since issues gain momentum when they create a sense of urgency. Proposals spread when they connect, and decisions happen when the broader political mood allows it.
Policy does not move forward simply because it makes sense. It moves when it connects.
The Role of Emotions
This is where emotions come in—not as a distraction from rational decision-making, but as part of it. Different emotions influence how people engage with public issues and debates. They affect what captures attention, what gains momentum in public discourse, and what connects in the media. Certain emotional tones can amplify issues, turning them into widely discussed topics, while others may struggle to break through. These dynamics help shape public opinion, political pressure, and ultimately the space in which decisions are made.
Policymakers themselves are not immune to these dynamics. Their own emotional responses—whether to crises, public pressure, or personal values—can also affect how problems are framed, which options are prioritised, and how decisions unfold.
More Than a “Soft Factor”
Emotions have long been recognised as part of political communication. From classical rhetoric onwards, they have been understood as tools to persuade, mobilise, and give weight to speech. Today, however, political scientists are looking at emotions in a broader way. Rather than seeing them only as rhetorical devices, they are increasingly understood as shaping the entire policy process.
Emotions influence how issues are perceived, how debates unfold, and how attention forms around certain topics. In this sense, they are not secondary to “real” drivers like evidence or economic considerations, but intertwined with them throughout decision-making.
Rethinking How Decisions Are Made
Recognising this does not mean abandoning evidence-based policymaking. It means developing a more holistic understanding of how policy change works. It also raises uncomfortable questions. Whose emotions are reflected in policy decisions? Which ones are overlooked? And how do these dynamics shape trust in institutions?
In the end, policy is not only about solving problems. It is also about responding to how those problems are experienced by people. This is why advancing research on the role of emotions in policymaking is essential. By better understanding how emotions shape attention, engagement, and decisions, we can improve how policies are designed, communicated, and implemented. Bridging the gap between evidence and experience is not just an academic question, it is key to making policymaking more effective, inclusive, and responsive.