Politicians are often described as those in power. They are elected, appointed and scrutinised for their ability to govern, prioritise and make decisions. This creates an image that they control the development of a country, including innovation. And to some extent this is true. But there is a crucial exception. Creativity cannot be governed.
History has shown this clearly. In the Soviet Union, attempts were made from time to time to plan innovation by setting quotas on how many ideas would be produced. The result was that the quotas were met, but with ideas that lacked real value. An often-cited example is the proposal to use wood in the axles of heavy train carriages. The quota was met, but innovation failed. It was in practice a protest against a system that tried to force creativity without creating the conditions for it.
This says something important. Innovation cannot be ordered. It can only be enabled.
Reversing the perspective
If we instead reverse the reasoning, the role of politics in innovation becomes clearer. A good innovation leader is not the one who comes up with all the ideas themselves. He is the one who creates the conditions for others to succeed. The one who formulates challenges, builds environments where ideas can be tested and gives recognition to those who actually create something new. This type of leader does not take credit for the innovations. He takes responsibility for making the innovations possible.
The same logic applies to politicians. When politicians function at their best within innovation systems, they are not controllers of creativity. They are enablers of it. They set direction through goals and visions. They create frameworks through laws and regulations. They mobilize resources through investments. And they act as ambassadors for change.
From that perspective, innovators can begin to see politicians as their helpful assistants.
An interaction rather than a hierarchy
Innovation in societal systems is an interaction. Politicians express needs. Sometimes clearly through political goals. Sometimes indirectly through regulations or policy instruments. This becomes the starting point for innovation. Innovators respond by developing solutions.
Companies, researchers and civil society test, build and iterate. Politicians can then reinforce what works by adjusting regulations, scaling up investments or spreading solutions.
This is a dynamic rather than a linear process.
At the same time, politicians are people. They are influenced by public opinion, relationships and values. It is part of the strength of democracy that this can change without revolutions. But this also means that innovation does not automatically have an impact. If no one expresses needs or shows opportunities, it will be difficult for politicians to act.
This places a responsibility on innovators. To not only create solutions but also communicate them in a way that makes them understood and prioritized.
Innovation as infrastructure
We are used to seeing roads, railways and electricity grids as infrastructure that supports society. But innovation systems are at least as important.
A functioning innovation system consists of research, education, financing, test environments, regulations and networks.
It is this system that determines whether ideas can become reality. Just as a road makes it possible to transport goods, an innovation system makes it possible to transport ideas into reality.
If the infrastructure is weak, development stops. That is why countries invest in universities, research programs and innovation support. Not to control exactly what will be created, but to create the conditions.
When the market is not enough
There is a widespread idea that the market itself drives innovation. And this is true to some extent. Companies have strong incentives to develop products that can be sold.
But the market also has limitations. It tends to prioritize short-term profitability. It is less able to deal with long-term societal challenges such as climate change, education or public health. Research shows that many of the most significant innovations, such as the internet, GPS and several medical breakthroughs, have their origins in publicly funded research and political initiatives.
If innovation is left solely to the market, we risk missing out on what is important but not immediately profitable.
This is where politics plays a crucial role. As a balance to the market. As an investor in something that does not yet have a clear business model. As a guarantor that innovation also serves societal interests.
A method for working with innovation in political contexts
Working with innovation in relation to politics requires a conscious approach.
- It starts with formulating the problem in a way that is relevant to politics. It is not just about what is technically possible but about what societal benefit is created.
- Then you need to understand the political landscape. Which issues are prioritized. Which actors have influence. What decisions are about to be made.
- The next step is to connect your solution to these priorities. To show how the innovation contributes to something bigger than itself.
- It is also about building relationships. Politics is largely a relationship-driven process. Those who succeed in influencing are often those who are present over time.
- Finally, timing is required. Understanding when a proposal has the greatest chance of having an impact.
The importance of timing
Political cycles affect innovation more than you might think. Before elections, there is often an openness to new ideas. Parties are looking for proposals that can strengthen their agenda.
This can be a good opportunity to introduce new initiatives. At the same time, decision-making capacity can be lower because the focus is on winning support rather than making long-term decisions.
Between elections, there is often a greater opportunity to implement changes. Decisions can be made and implemented. But then it can be more difficult to get new issues on the agenda. This creates a rhythm that innovators can learn to navigate.
The metaphor of the orchestra
Innovation in social systems can be likened to an orchestra. The innovators are the musicians. They create the sound, the variation and the new. The politicians are the conductor. They set the pace, direction and ensure that the whole works.
But a conductor cannot play all the instruments. And an orchestra without a conductor risks becoming incoherent. It is in the interaction that the music arises.
When the roles are understood correctly
When we see politicians as those in power, we risk expecting them to create innovation.
When we see them as enablers, their role becomes clearer. They create conditions. They set frameworks. They reinforce what works.
But they cannot replace creativity. It has to come from somewhere else. And perhaps that is precisely where the real responsibility lies. With those who see the possibilities. And who understand that politics is not something you wait for. But something you interact with.
