Home ›› 04 Nov 2021 ›› Editorial
The evolution of the digitalized world has brought with it, different connotations. There is now an agreed understanding that the process of governance should not only be transparent in decision making, but also that the outcome of implementation of such decisions, has to be consistent with accountability. This awareness has arisen from the sensitization that the real authority within a country rests with its citizens and within an institution with its stakeholders. Consequently, today, special emphasis is laid on how governance should be carried out and whether it is being done responsibly and meaningfully.
There have been attempts at different times to broadly describe good governance within the paradigm of how public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources in order to guarantee the realization of human rights. It has also been explained as "the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)". It has also been agreed by academics that the term governance ‘can apply to corporate, international, national, local governance or to the interactions between other sectors of society’.
The term "good governance" has lately found acceptance as a benchmark of behavior whereby it can be used as a model to compare ineffective economies or political bodies with viable economies and political bodies. Such a distinction is often undertaken on the basis of the premise that many States in Western Europe, Japan, Canada and the USA, often possess institutions that rely on open governance and accountability that can act as standards by which to compare other states' institutions when talking about governance.
Good governance can generally imply many things in different contexts. In international affairs, analysis of good governance can look at any of the following relationships: between governments and markets, between governments and citizens, between governments and the private or voluntary sector, between elected officials and appointed officials, between local institutions and urban and rural dwellers, between legislature and executive branches, and between nation states and institutions.
The varying types of comparisons comprising the analysis of governance in scholastic and practical discussion can also cause the meaning of "good governance" to vary greatly from practitioner to practitioner. There is consensus however that all these four institutions function as integral parts within its equation: the state, both the public and private sectors and civil society.
It may be noted however that the need and demand for reform within the matrix can vary depending on the priorities of each country's society and that in turn will determine the required various types of governance reform.
In this context, it would be useful to recall that the IMF’s Declaration of 1996 noted- "promoting good governance in all its aspects”, includes “ensuring the rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the public sector, and tackling corruption, as essential elements of a framework within which economies can prosper." The IMF, through this view, underlined that corruption within economies is caused by the ineffective governance of the economy, either too much regulation or too little regulation. As a result, it is generally accepted that to receive loans from the IMF, countries must have certain good governance policies, as determined by the IMF, in place.
The UN also emphasizes on good governance for achieving required reform in human development and political institutions. According to the UN, good governance has to be consistent with certain characteristics- be consensus oriented, participatory, be consistent with Rule of Law, be effective and efficient, be accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive.
Another important international financial institution- the World Bank is more concerned on the other hand with the reform of economic and social resource control. In 1992, it underlined three aspects of society which they feel affect the nature of a country's governance: ‘type of political regime; process by which authority is exercised in the management of the economic and social resources, with a view to development; and capacity of governments to formulate policies and have them effectively implemented’.
The stipulations indicated in the preceding paragraphs can appear to be restrictive to some but these factors are stressed on because it is felt that there is a close link between poor governance and corruption. At the same time, concepts such as decentralized governance, peaceful conflict management and accountability are also used for defining the concept of good governance. Consequently, at times, emphasis on good governance is equated with promoting democratic government. In this context, one needs to underline the significant part that will have to be played by political parties within the democratic system. They have a pivotal role in the state's development, either negatively (e.g. organizing and instigating violence) or positively (e.g. by leading dialogue in a fractured society). However, differences in approach should not lead to a fractured situation. This can then affect governance and create instability. We need to understand that responsible behavior on the part of those associated with politics is a prerequisite for economic development. The identifying of problem areas and discovering requisite solutions sometimes require a bi-partisan approach and open discussion within the Parliament. If this does not take place, it affects growth and potential foreign direct investment. It also leads to unnecessary recriminations that are best avoided than undertaken.
Analysts in general agree on the following minimum criteria for ensuring good national governance, democracy and liberal constitutionalism. They are: 1) participation, equity, and inclusiveness, 2) abiding with the principle of rule of law and effective separation of powers, 3) free, independent, and responsible media, 4) government legitimacy, 6) accountability, 7) transparency, and 8) limiting the distorting effect of money in politics.
Any discussion about good governance should also include references to corporate governance. Deterioration in standards within this framework can greatly affect good governance and the sense of responsibility and accountability within the broader context. This definitely reduces the ability of certain participants to successfully overcome inbuilt challenges. As a result, the management sometimes ends up not being completely accountable to the Board or the Board being accountable to the shareholders/ stakeholders. Opportunism and greed can lead to such deviation and this leads to erosion in values.
Good governance has been taken forward in Bangladesh with the adoption of the Right to Information Act, 2009 and the constitution of the Information Commission. This has facilitated transparency and accountability within the government institutions and Non-governmental Organizations which receive funding either from the government or from external partners (foreign funding). The Act does not however cover the private corporate sector. This, by implication, restricts the process of proactive disclosure. This is a drawback that needs to be remedied. I believe that if the Act can be amended, it will then improve corporate governance and also reduce corruption.
No discussion about good governance will however be complete without touching on the important issues of- the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature and also the fundamental relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. These Organs play a fundamental role not only in the upholding of human rights but also the fundamental principles and the fundamental rights as enunciated in the Constitution. It is this necessity that demands non-interference in the activities expected from each of these Organs. It is only through this that the hopes and aspirations of the people can be guaranteed. Politicization in their activities can only impair their performance.
Another important element that helps to strengthen good governance is decentralization. A top-down approach, without necessary dialogue with those at the grass roots level, can sometimes lead to wrong or misplaced strategic initiatives. A participatory decision making arrangement, after consultation with all stakeholders will be better for governance for all parties at different tiers. This is unfortunately forgotten at times and leads to complications.
One cannot conclude any discussion on the subject of good governance without referring to the need for establishing an Ombudsman, who can be impartial, rise above partisan politics and ensure accountability within the system of governance. Article 77 of our Constitution suggests that the Parliament may, by law, provide for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman.
Consistent with this principle, the Ombudsman is expected to exercise such powers and perform such functions as Parliament may, by law, determine, including the power to investigate any action taken by a Ministry, a public officer or a statutory public authority. This concept has proven to be very successful in the Scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden and has extended the reach of efficient and corruption-free governance in that nation. We should also seriously consider replicating this in Bangladesh. The presence of an Ombudsman would not only ensure true independence for bodies like the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Public Service Commission but also guarantee lack of external interference pertaining to their activities.
The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at<muhammadzamir0@gmail.com
