What is good governance and good government?<\/p>\n
By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Since the World Bank adopted the concept of good
\ngovernance as a new ethic of international lending, many have
\noffered an interpretation on this concept. There is no fixed
\nunderstanding about this concept. As a consequence, confusion and
\ncursory applications pertain, especially among less academic
\ncommunity members, such as politicians and activists. One form of
\nmisconception is the conflation between governance and
\ngovernment. Thus, good governance is conflated to be good
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Political intention always shadows the usage of this concept.
\nThis fact contributes to the misconception. The World Bank and
\nother lending agencies try to use this concept to improve the
\nmanagement of development in recipient countries. To avoid the
\nimpression of domestic interference and to save government face,
\nthese lending agencies prefer to use more technical terminology
\nrather than campaign against patronage and corruption.
\nProdemocratic activists use this concept to change the dominant
\ninfluence of state and criticize the government. Government is
\nthe prime, even sole, actor that must change to create the
\ncondition called good governance.<\/p>\n
Governance is actually a concept that is more inclusive than
\nthe government. The latter concept refers to an administration
\nbased on the highest form of authority. Governance, on the other
\nhand, involves the role of parties outside the state. Boundaries
\nbetween the state and private sectors are less distinct because
\nboth parts involve certain collective actions.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the conditions of state and social groups must be
\ntaken into account when talking about governance. Within this
\nframework, no social projects, such as democratization, can be
\nrealized merely by changing the nature of the state and the
\ncharacteristics of its government. All political projects of good
\ngovernance aim at strengthening the role of nonstate sectors in
\npublic management. However, it is understandable that the state
\nand government always become the main target of a project to
\ncreate good governance since the government, through the state,
\nholds the highest forms of authority.<\/p>\n
The adoption of good governance as a new development ethic has
\nseveral backgrounds. One that has often been mentioned is the
\ntendency to impose harsher requirements toward the recipient
\ncountries since the end of the cold war. Another was the
\ndevelopment of development thinking itself. Until the second half
\nof the 1990s, there was a view that a strong state was the prime
\ncondition to create economic growth.<\/p>\n
It was this strong state that was needed to apply economic
\nprinciples. But strong states were proved to have created
\ndistortions in economic efficiency. Businesses based on patron-
\nclient relations and corruption were only two kinds of
\ndistortions that were mentioned too often. The review about this
\nsituation led to the thought that a form of public control must
\nbe developed. A method to facilitate public control is
\ninstitutional building.<\/p>\n
In practice, institutional building often takes form in
\nprograms such as decentralization, improved mechanisms of
\naccounting and auditing and law reform. Institutional reforms
\nsuch as these will expectedly improve the pattern of resource
\nallocation to be more efficient.<\/p>\n
From the description above, it is clear that the concept of
\ngood governance does not necessarily deal with the strengthening
\nof civil society within a democratization framework. It is only a
\nmaybe, but it is never by design. Good governance simply
\nrecognizes that economic programs can not be successful without
\npolitical legitimacy, social order and institutional efficiency.<\/p>\n
The pattern of resource allocation in the past undermined
\npolitical legitimacy and, later, bred social disorder.
\nThe fact that now the concept is applied within the framework of
\ndemocratization was made possible by the discourses developed by
\nprodemocratic groups. They view people's participation and the
\nprotection of human rights as integral parts of the creation of
\ngood governance.<\/p>\n
But good governance is not a mantra that is applicable to
\nevery country and situation. Successful governance depends on the
\nconstitution of the components of governance, mode of
\ncoordination adopted and the environment of relevant actors who
\ncoordinate their activities. Components of governance that are
\noften mentioned are a rule of law, qualified bureaucracy,
\ntransparent policy-making, accountable executives and a strong
\ncivil society.<\/p>\n
It is widely believed that the creation of these components is
\nnecessary for good governance. Of course, who can deny it? But
\nthe problem is, these components need more specification.
\nFurthermore, we need to answer what actually are the relations
\nbetween these components. I believe that every country has a
\ndifferent answer.<\/p>\n
Take for example, the component of the rule of law. What laws
\ndoes each country need? Here we speak about fields of public life
\nthat need to be formally regulated. In the context of present
\nIndonesia, so many laws need to be revised and created. Some say
\nthat to bolster economic recovery, economic law must get
\npriority. Without it, people do not feel secure and foreign
\ninvestment will not come. Prolonged economic hardship will create
\nother forms of social disorder. Other groups are more concerned
\nwith the protection of political rights.<\/p>\n
But the rule of law does not only pertain with the scope. Not
\nthe least important is the rule of law needs tradition. It is
\nwithin this tradition that people are willing to accept laws to
\nsolve conflicts and regulate things. It is clearer now that
\ngovernance is not simply about government, but also about people.<\/p>\n
How do we measure a strong civil society? General indicators
\noften adopted are high education and political participation.
\nCertainly, political organizations and associations are
\nimportant. They are mediating institutions that bridge public
\npolicies and specific group interests. Often forgotten is the
\norientation of these institutions with a diversity in society.<\/p>\n
One indicator is regulated competition. The absence of this
\nelement only creates a deepening fragmentation among communities.
\nAnother indicator of a strong civil society is the content of
\npopular arts. Popular arts that deal more with the problem of
\nhumanity rather than expressing a group's position may indicate a
\nstrong civil society.<\/p>\n
About the principle of coordination, take again the component
\nof the rule of law. Must a condition of good governance entirely
\nrely on the formal principle of coordination? Indonesia is not as
\nmodern as many analysts would understand it. Parts of society are
\nstill managed by different kinds of informal arrangements. We can
\nsee one clear example from the recent general election. It was
\nnot the concept of citizenship that moved many people to the
\npolls. Social leaders have played an important role in mobilizing
\npeople.<\/p>\n
The same thing happens with the rule of law. Many Indonesians
\nare not ready to enter the intricacies of formal systems. They
\nfeel more comfortable to delegate their matters to informal
\nleaders and arrangements. If they feel dissatisfied with the
\ngovernment, they do not come to formal organizations such as
\nunions, but express their feelings to religious leaders. This
\ncondition demands the combination of formal and informal
\narrangements to make good governance.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the concept of good governance proposed either by
\nlending agencies or prodemocratic groups are often too simplistic
\nand enthusiastic. In my opinion, both groups suffer the logic of
\ntrickle-down effects. Only this time it is not about modern
\nindustries but about formal institutions. Formal institutions, of
\ncourse, are very important in facilitating orderly transactions.
\nBut it must be bore in mind that formal institutions generally
\nserve modern sectors better than others. For developing
\ncountries, more focus must be given to the reactivation of the
\nlocal economy and protection of disadvantaged groups.<\/p>\n
The mistake made by prodemocratic groups pertains to their
\nview about a strong state. Understandably, it is not popular to
\ninfuse the thought about the virtue of a strong state in good
\ngovernance for a country that just experienced an authoritarian
\ntype of government. A strong state is needed to manage public
\nsectors not only to serve them but also to protect the weaker
\ngroups that no civil groups want or are able to do so. The role
\nof state becomes more important in the society where trust,
\nsolidarity and collective consciousness are thin.<\/p>\n
In the context of present Indonesia, it is worthwhile to
\nexploit the perspective that encourages mutual cooperation
\nbetween the state and community institutions. The Indonesian
\nstate does not only need criticism to improve itself but also
\nsupport. For example, to improve the performance of government
\nagencies in certain development programs, civil groups can help
\nby supplying data and monitoring.<\/p>\n
Civic education must develop the orientation of rational
\npolitics. The state, on the other hand, must facilitate the
\neconomic and social cooperation between different groups through
\ngovernment policies. One promising a form of cooperation between
\nthe state and people is a civil network in public policies. This
\nkind of network helps the government make acceptable policies
\nthat will later boost its legitimacy.<\/p>\n
The writer is a teaching staff at the Department of Sociology,
\nthe University of Indonesia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/what-is-good-governance-and-good-government-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}