Good Governance:
The word “governance” derives from the
Greek word “kubernan” which means “to steer”. Oxford
dictionary defines governance as “the action or manner of governing a state or organization”. In political
science, governance is defined as a process; a process which is undertaken to
govern a state, family or organization through laws, norms, power or language.
Depending upon the relation between the governor and
governed, governance can be categorized as good or bad. There is no exact
definition of good governance. However, the harmonious relation between the
state, market and civil society can be termed as good governance.
Depending on the
context and the overriding objective sought, good governance has been said at various
times to encompass: full respect of human rights, the rule of law, effective
participation, multi-actor partnerships,
political pluralism, transparent and accountable processes and institutions, an
efficient
and effective public sector, legitimacy, access to knowledge, information and
education, political
empowerment of people, equity, sustainability, and attitudes and values that
foster responsibility,
solidarity and tolerance (UNHR).
According to World Bank, Good governance entails sound
public sector management (efficiency and economy), transparency, legitimacy,
justice and respect for human rights and law.
In this way, the dominant idea of good governance
promotes multiparty democracy form of system and it is nearly neglecting any
other forms of political system. It can easily be argued, what if other forms
of system of governance are able to make general public more happier than that
of multiparty system. According to World Happiness Report 2013, people of Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and UAE are happier than people of Japan (2013). The three
countries mentioned before do not have a democratic form of governing body
instead they have almost autocratic forms of government still they are able to
make their people comparatively satisfied than other countries with democratic
forms of government.
On Attributes of Good Governance:
Accountability:
Accountability is itself a vague term to define in
precise terms. It is said to be exist in such a space where there is an
individual and a form of body from whom the individual is seeking some kind of
help, assistance, information justification or an action or vice versa. So, it
deals with the process of enforcement and answerability. Accountability ensures
the actions and enforcement decisions taken by public officials are totally in
favor of the agendas of the general public or organizations they are meant to
be benefitting.
As said earlier, accountability is a vague term which can
be defined in various ways depending upon the situation and social settings.
However, answerability refers to the obligation of government and its bodies to
provide general public with the information of justification that their
decisions are totally in favor of the development and welfare of the
population. On the other hand, enforcement refers to the right of such bodies
to take actions against the spoiler behaviors of any parties which are
hindering the process of implementation of such decisions (The World Bank:
2013).
Transparency:
Transparency is another important aspect of good
governance. The notion of transparency is generally understood as “the perceived
quality of intentionally sent information from the sender”. In other words,
transparency can be defined as doing any jobs in such a way that it is very
easy for others to know how much the job has been done in a given time. In
governance, the general public are supposed to know if the government is doing
what it has committed or supposed to do. Transparency can be guaranteed by regular
delivery of informations from the government bodies to the general public about
the works they are doing.
In addition to this, the notion of transparency is highly
linked with the financial operations. The governing body should regularly
inform the public about the incomes and expenditures for any projects they are
operating so that the people will know how much work has been completed or
should have completed. If the governing body fails to do so, then it starts
loosing its credibility among the general public.
Participation:
The notion of participation can be defined as the active engagement of the
general public in any forms of decision making of the government so that they
can implement those policies in local level with a guarantee of local ownership.
UN Public Administration Glossary defines participation as:
…involvement of
citizens in a wide range of policy-making activities, including determination
of levels of service, budget priority and acceptability of physical
construction projects in order to orient government programs towards community
needs, build public support, and encourage a sense of public cohesiveness in
neighborhoods (2008).
The concept of participation is more important when there
are some marginalized groups within the governing area. This notion of
participation guarantees such marginalized groups to participate in the
decision making process of social, political and economic issues so that they
can be benefitted as the major groups of the state. The sense of ownership in
this process leads to the feeling of sense of equality among the citizens and
encourages harmony between them ultimately resulting in a sustainable
intergroup relation.
Legitimacy:
Legitimacy provides a ground for the governing bodies to
make decisions and effectively implement them in the targeted area. Without
legitimacy, the decisions made by government or other assisting bodies of any
government may face resistance from the public or opposition in forms of
violent and non-violent movements.
Legitimacy is another vague term to be defined in exact
terms. However, the governing body which is installed through elections of
general public or in a democratic way is widely understood to be a legitimate
governing body. But, the social and cultural legitimacy also cannot be
overlooked instantly. There are many countries in the world which have
autocratic regime or which are governed through such bodies which are not
elected by general public. These types of government are either installed
through the process of cultural legitimacy or religious legitimacy by which
they are able to enforce the decisions they make.
Even in the elected government bodies the legitimacy can
be challenged by the opposition if the governing body acts against the will of
the people or the constitution of the state. So, legitimacy is situational.
Responsiveness and Delivery of Justice:
Responsiveness is directly related to delivery of public
goods. In good governance, the government is said to be able to deliver all the
public goods and services the public are in need of. Public goods here means
all the services that should be delivered by state in an indiscriminate manner
like justice, freedom and other basic needs of the people which are guaranteed
by the constitution of that state.
If the government fails to provide public goods or
response to the people then it is not taken as good governance. So, the
government and its bodies should be able to provide perpetual public goods
(security, justice, freedom) and situational services in case of the public
needs during the man-made or natural disasters.
In modern days, scholars and the united nations have
attached the respect of human rights and public international law with the
notion of responsiveness. The government of any country should be able to
guarantee the human rights of the people and other rights which it has
committed to fulfill while signing international conventions.
Challenges in Nepal:
After a decade long civil war, Nepal entered into a phase
of political as well as social transition since 2006 with the 12 point
understanding between the political parties and then rebel CPN-Maoist. With
elongating transition in the country, none of the governments which were formed
after 2006 are not yet able to provide a sense of good governance towards the
general public of Nepal.
The major challenges faced by the governing bodies during
this time and further on are described as under.
1. Survival Oriented Nature of Cabinet: Nepal has always suffered by the survival oriented
nature of the cabinet. Since, the first election of constituent assembly in
2008, no political party has been able to garner a majority votes to establish
a single party cabinet. So, all the
cabinets which were installed after 2008 were and are joint cabinets of
the political parties. The difference between the political ideologies and
mistrust between the parties taking part in government are seen polarized with
other forces and operating to make a new coalition government. So, every
cabinet thrived for survival. So to sustain, the government has always been
trying to convince and work in the benefit of parties in volition rather than
focusing on meeting the demands of the people. This has resulted in numerous
unpopular decision-making from the cabinet and failure in drafting the
constitution of Nepal which is a major task to be completed to end the phase of
transition. The consequences are eroded
accountability, transparency and legitimacy of the government as well as the
political parties.
2. Absence of elected government at local level: As per the constitution of Nepal, the local level
administration is governed by the elected VDC members, Municipality members or
Metropolitan members. Unfortunately the local level elections has not been held
since 15 years. So, there is total absence of state in the local level which
has resulted in obstacle for local public to get services they should get from
the state. The efficiency of government bodies has thus been degraded in a very
high ratio. People are facing difficulties even to receive basic services form
the government like citizenship certificate, birth certificate etc. In addition
to this there is no body to implement the state sponsored programs and
development works in local level resulting continuous budget freeze. So, the
absence of elected government at local level has directly hampered the
responsiveness capability of the government.
3. Corruption: Corruption in government bodies and other public sectors have hampered
the quality of governance of the country. The level of corruption is so
critical that Nepal has been listed in
the most corrupt countries of the world. According to Transparency
International report, Nepal ranks 116th position of least corrupt countries out
of 177. The transparency is highly questioned when the public servants are
corrupt. In addition to this, corruption not only hampers in the development
process of the country and hampers in developing the public goods but it
becomes more critical when corruption becomes a culture and starts to get accepted
in the society. Then, people themselves are willing to bribe the officers to
get their work done. When it becomes two way then everyone are encouraged to
become corrupt.
4. Institutionalized Problems: Apart from corruption, nepotism, irresponsibility etc.
have become institutionalized problems of Nepalese bureaucracy. Handing over
the better jobs to their keens, delaying the jobs of general public are simple
examples. These problems have long ago been institutionalized in Nepalese
bureaucracy and it has now become a bureaucratic culture. This has hampered the
transparency, responsiveness and accountability of the government.
5. Social Economic and Political Disparities: Nepal is a country where more than 25% of its population
live under the line of poverty. They live in less than a dollar a day. In
addition to this the social structures of the country are so discriminating
which have always hindered the equal participation of marginalized groups in
the decision making process and receiving services provided by the state. To
worsen this, the political instability has always played a important role to
plant fear in people’s mind. The political stalemate and deadlocks compels
people to be pessimistic about the betterment of the society in any time. This
has resulted in brain drain, immigration, huge demographic changes and flow of
working forces to foreign countries in order to guarantee their survival in
future.
6. Ethnic disharmony: In the recent period, the ethnic tensions between the
people of Nepal has highly increased. The revival of historical trauma has
caused antagonistic relations between different ethnic groups creating security
and social problems. This has increased mistrust between the ethnic groups and
sometimes they even come to the phase of encounter. Good governance is not
possible without peace, without harmonious relationship between the citizens of
the state. The ethnic tensions rising in the lower lands and eastern hills has
increased more pressure on the security sector.
7. Weak State Capacity: Nepal is a poor, militarily weak and socially fragile
nation. The elongation of transition period in the country has worsened this
condition. Therefore, it is obvious that the state capacity of the country is
weak. Even if the government wills to make any reforms it does not have enough
resources. It is very difficult to maintain social and legal order in such a
country to any kinds of government because the government is not able even to
provide basic services it should be providing without the help of donors and
international community. But when assistance is seemed from others, it always
comes with some sort of interference which may be political, social or
economic. So it is very difficult to any government to maintain a balance
between these all aspects and ensure good governance.
Conclusion:
In order to assure good governance in a country with weak
state capacity like Nepal, it needs a strong political will to make social
political and economic reforms. Economic disparities and social inequalities
are taken as the main cause of decade long civil war. So, the government should
focus on the development works, economic programs and should encourage
awareness programs to overcome social stereotypes, stigmas and superstitions.
While doing so, the religious, ethnic and cultural aspects should be taken in
high consideration.
References:
"Accountability
and Governance." Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 31.1
(2011): n. pag. Structure and Governance. The World Bank. Web. <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/AccountabilityGovernance.pdf>.
"Good
Governance and Human Rights." United Nations Human Rights. Office of High
Commissioner for Human Rights, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2014. <http://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx>.
Helliwell J.,
Layard R. and Sach J.
"World Happiness Report 2013." United Nations Sustainable Development
Solution Network (2014): n. pag. Web. Oct.-Nov.
2014.
Schnackenberg,
A., Tomlinson, E., 2014. Organizational Transparency: A New Perspective on
Managing Trust in Organization-Stakeholder Relationships. Journal of Management
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314525202
"UNPAGlossary." UNPAGlossary. N.p., n.d. Web.
Nov. 2014. <http://www.unpan.org/Directories/UNPublicAdministrationGlossary/tabid/928/language/en-US/Default.aspx>.
