Public health and politics are two sides of the same coin. Just combining the words
‘public’ and ‘health’ makes a clear statement that health can only be achieved by
the concerted action of many people who must work together in pursuit of a common
goal. Acknowledging this raises questions, though: How should they work together?
As a voluntary grouping of those with shared interests, where people can join or leave
as they desire? Or within an organized state, governed by laws that safeguard rights
but demand obligations? Such questions, addressing issues like the relationship between
the individual and the state and the distribution of power and resources in society,
are at the heart of political science. But they are also crucial to efforts to improve
health. Too often, we shy away from politics, instead adopting a narrow and, arguably,
easier technocratic approach, setting out why an evidence-based action should be done
without asking how it might be done and devising an appropriate implementation strategy.
This Special Issue is an initiative by EUPHA’s Public Health Practice and Policy section.
Taking as a motto: that ‘the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various
ways. The point, however, is to change it’,
1
it responds to the call ‘for public health to extend its rigorous analysis to politics,
drawing and building on the insights of political science to fulfil the promise of
public health that it strives to cure society’s ills, rather than just diagnose them’.
2
Recalling writings that go back to Virchow,
3
who attributed the deaths during the 19th century typhus epidemic in Silesia to the
power of the aristocracy supported by the church and, more recently, by Bambra et
al.
4
and De Leeuw et al.
5
among others, they call on the public health community to ask what shapes the political
options and techniques for public health, and when or not do we use them given the
strategic landscapes of the political systems we navigate in?
The papers in this Special Issue seek to address these prescriptive questions by taking
an empirical approach to studying how it is actually practiced and with what gains
or consequences. It describes a variety of middle range theories on how different
arrangements for ‘puzzling’ and ‘powering’ can offer an improved understanding of
politics in some key areas for public health. Each paper describes a political science
concept illustrated by a key public health issue. Inevitably, it has not been possible
to cover the entire range of political science as it relates to health. Systematic
comparisons, for instance, of the politics of different public health issues at a
variety of scales in government and society could further deepen our understanding
that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach and public health political strategy
needs tailoring to specific circumstances and positions of actors.
This series is especially timely when political disruptions cause uncertainty and
risk on many issues including health, and, more specifically, when the Italian government
has reversed the decision of its predecessor to make childhood immunization mandatory,
and when an Austrian government has abandoned plans by its predecessor to impose a
smoking ban in public places. In Brexit, the United Kingdom is pursuing a policy that
will cause profound damage to its health system, also putting lives at risk.
6
In all of these cases, the public health community has assembled and presented the
evidence, but without success. As political configurations move away from the mainstream
politics of the 20th century, with ‘fringe’ movements becoming parties in government
and mainstream parties changing their stance and priorities, these ‘Winds of Change’
in Europe inevitably require us to reconsider our approach to public health politics.
The European Public Health Association, by supporting this Special Issue has chosen
to start this important debate. With this Issue we hope to show you some of the opportunities
beside the threats of politics, and the assets that make our democracy work (sometimes,
even if it is rare and severely under pressure). Politics has a very bad name but
it has much to offer if we know how it works. A solid understanding makes us more
capable of professionally -that is informed by political science–organizing supportive
structures that coordinate public health values and priorities with other values and
priorities in society (meaning that we urgently need to move beyond the public health
community into the wider and especially the ‘hostile’ environment exploring and building
new coalitions). Secondly, having strong enduring strategies in place, such as professional
public affairs processes, enables us to add to our evidence base strategic intelligence
about stakeholders’ agendas and moves, organizing a receptive environment for the
solid science we already have in place. This requires a flexible and pragmatic mindset
in parts of the public health workforce, while safeguarding the authority of specialist
expertise in other areas. With these investments we are empowering ourselves to exert
effective influence, and empowering others to take smart and responsive decisions.
This Issue, with each paper offering an extensive biblio-graphy for a political evidence
base, offers a first step in that direction.
Funding
This open access Supplement received funding under an operating grant from the European
Union's Health Programme (2014–2020).
Conflicts of interest: None declared.