Policy can refer to a plan to achieve a particular objective. This simple statement suggests that policy goals would not be cluttered by considerations other than to achieve a specific task.

Beyond a policy statement, if it is ever explicit, implementation occurs that is often messy at best and sinister at worst. Into the mix of messiness comes a politics of contest and ambition, of denial and hubris, of shortage of resources and reinterpretation of goals. The number of policy players could increase astronomically, from politicians and bureaucrats to military and non-military operatives, from the intended beneficiaries of policies to the losers and victims, from state publicity machines to the partisan attitudes of diverse branches of media.

Even without the complex numbers of policy players, even if state representatives claim to have good intentions, their different objectives can lead to confusion and conflict. For example, the erosion of civil liberties has become a consequence of policies allegedly intended to achieve greater security for citizens. Efforts to deter criminality by increasing prison sentences have hindered policies to encourage the rehabilitation of prisoners. Under the influence of free market economic policies, the promotion of private business interests has eroded the resources of public institutions. In times of war and peace, countries’ foreign policies have been ambiguous, as in statements by an Australian Foreign Minister about her country wanting to shape an external environment and increase influence in a region, whatever that was supposed to mean.