What is good governance and good government?

What is good governance and good government?

By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman

JAKARTA (JP): Since the World Bank adopted the concept of good
governance as a new ethic of international lending, many have
offered an interpretation on this concept. There is no fixed
understanding about this concept. As a consequence, confusion and
cursory applications pertain, especially among less academic
community members, such as politicians and activists. One form of
misconception is the conflation between governance and
government. Thus, good governance is conflated to be good
government.

Political intention always shadows the usage of this concept.
This fact contributes to the misconception. The World Bank and
other lending agencies try to use this concept to improve the
management of development in recipient countries. To avoid the
impression of domestic interference and to save government face,
these lending agencies prefer to use more technical terminology
rather than campaign against patronage and corruption.
Prodemocratic activists use this concept to change the dominant
influence of state and criticize the government. Government is
the prime, even sole, actor that must change to create the
condition called good governance.

Governance is actually a concept that is more inclusive than
the government. The latter concept refers to an administration
based on the highest form of authority. Governance, on the other
hand, involves the role of parties outside the state. Boundaries
between the state and private sectors are less distinct because
both parts involve certain collective actions.

Therefore, the conditions of state and social groups must be
taken into account when talking about governance. Within this
framework, no social projects, such as democratization, can be
realized merely by changing the nature of the state and the
characteristics of its government. All political projects of good
governance aim at strengthening the role of nonstate sectors in
public management. However, it is understandable that the state
and government always become the main target of a project to
create good governance since the government, through the state,
holds the highest forms of authority.

The adoption of good governance as a new development ethic has
several backgrounds. One that has often been mentioned is the
tendency to impose harsher requirements toward the recipient
countries since the end of the cold war. Another was the
development of development thinking itself. Until the second half
of the 1990s, there was a view that a strong state was the prime
condition to create economic growth.

It was this strong state that was needed to apply economic
principles. But strong states were proved to have created
distortions in economic efficiency. Businesses based on patron-
client relations and corruption were only two kinds of
distortions that were mentioned too often. The review about this
situation led to the thought that a form of public control must
be developed. A method to facilitate public control is
institutional building.

In practice, institutional building often takes form in
programs such as decentralization, improved mechanisms of
accounting and auditing and law reform. Institutional reforms
such as these will expectedly improve the pattern of resource
allocation to be more efficient.

From the description above, it is clear that the concept of
good governance does not necessarily deal with the strengthening
of civil society within a democratization framework. It is only a
maybe, but it is never by design. Good governance simply
recognizes that economic programs can not be successful without
political legitimacy, social order and institutional efficiency.

The pattern of resource allocation in the past undermined
political legitimacy and, later, bred social disorder.
The fact that now the concept is applied within the framework of
democratization was made possible by the discourses developed by
prodemocratic groups. They view people's participation and the
protection of human rights as integral parts of the creation of
good governance.

But good governance is not a mantra that is applicable to
every country and situation. Successful governance depends on the
constitution of the components of governance, mode of
coordination adopted and the environment of relevant actors who
coordinate their activities. Components of governance that are
often mentioned are a rule of law, qualified bureaucracy,
transparent policy-making, accountable executives and a strong
civil society.

It is widely believed that the creation of these components is
necessary for good governance. Of course, who can deny it? But
the problem is, these components need more specification.
Furthermore, we need to answer what actually are the relations
between these components. I believe that every country has a
different answer.

Take for example, the component of the rule of law. What laws
does each country need? Here we speak about fields of public life
that need to be formally regulated. In the context of present
Indonesia, so many laws need to be revised and created. Some say
that to bolster economic recovery, economic law must get
priority. Without it, people do not feel secure and foreign
investment will not come. Prolonged economic hardship will create
other forms of social disorder. Other groups are more concerned
with the protection of political rights.

But the rule of law does not only pertain with the scope. Not
the least important is the rule of law needs tradition. It is
within this tradition that people are willing to accept laws to
solve conflicts and regulate things. It is clearer now that
governance is not simply about government, but also about people.

How do we measure a strong civil society? General indicators
often adopted are high education and political participation.
Certainly, political organizations and associations are
important. They are mediating institutions that bridge public
policies and specific group interests. Often forgotten is the
orientation of these institutions with a diversity in society.

One indicator is regulated competition. The absence of this
element only creates a deepening fragmentation among communities.
Another indicator of a strong civil society is the content of
popular arts. Popular arts that deal more with the problem of
humanity rather than expressing a group's position may indicate a
strong civil society.

About the principle of coordination, take again the component
of the rule of law. Must a condition of good governance entirely
rely on the formal principle of coordination? Indonesia is not as
modern as many analysts would understand it. Parts of society are
still managed by different kinds of informal arrangements. We can
see one clear example from the recent general election. It was
not the concept of citizenship that moved many people to the
polls. Social leaders have played an important role in mobilizing
people.

The same thing happens with the rule of law. Many Indonesians
are not ready to enter the intricacies of formal systems. They
feel more comfortable to delegate their matters to informal
leaders and arrangements. If they feel dissatisfied with the
government, they do not come to formal organizations such as
unions, but express their feelings to religious leaders. This
condition demands the combination of formal and informal
arrangements to make good governance.

Therefore, the concept of good governance proposed either by
lending agencies or prodemocratic groups are often too simplistic
and enthusiastic. In my opinion, both groups suffer the logic of
trickle-down effects. Only this time it is not about modern
industries but about formal institutions. Formal institutions, of
course, are very important in facilitating orderly transactions.
But it must be bore in mind that formal institutions generally
serve modern sectors better than others. For developing
countries, more focus must be given to the reactivation of the
local economy and protection of disadvantaged groups.

The mistake made by prodemocratic groups pertains to their
view about a strong state. Understandably, it is not popular to
infuse the thought about the virtue of a strong state in good
governance for a country that just experienced an authoritarian
type of government. A strong state is needed to manage public
sectors not only to serve them but also to protect the weaker
groups that no civil groups want or are able to do so. The role
of state becomes more important in the society where trust,
solidarity and collective consciousness are thin.

In the context of present Indonesia, it is worthwhile to
exploit the perspective that encourages mutual cooperation
between the state and community institutions. The Indonesian
state does not only need criticism to improve itself but also
support. For example, to improve the performance of government
agencies in certain development programs, civil groups can help
by supplying data and monitoring.

Civic education must develop the orientation of rational
politics. The state, on the other hand, must facilitate the
economic and social cooperation between different groups through
government policies. One promising a form of cooperation between
the state and people is a civil network in public policies. This
kind of network helps the government make acceptable policies
that will later boost its legitimacy.

The writer is a teaching staff at the Department of Sociology,
the University of Indonesia.