THE SPIRIT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
Decoding the essence of good governance
“If one were to pick any common elements that would form the foundation of good governance, they would include transparency in the exercise of powers, equity in the delivery of responsibilities and accountability towards those to whom the responsibilities are owed”
Dr. Arittha Wikramanayake
‘Good governance’ is commonly prescribed as a blanket cure for all ills in society with little thought given to its meaning or significance. In fact, the term could carry diverse connotations depending on the context in which it is applied.
Simply put, good governance is the stringent exercise of power by any person or entity vested with power over others.
Propriety is contextual and depends on – among other factors – the responsibilities and powers that are to be exercised, the interests of stakeholders towards whom duties are owed and the environment in which the powers are to be exercised.
Good governance cannot therefore be evaluated on a universal scale.
Though codes of governance and mandatory rules can prescribe basic norms, they cannot guarantee compliance with such standards. Neither do self-affirmations of compliance – nor do awards portray a true reflection of the practice of good governance.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR It would be superficial to make broad generalisations regarding the extent of good governance in the private or public sector. Comprising a broad spectrum of entities of various shapes and sizes, and an equally varied group of stakeholders, the criteria for governance vary.
Moreover, the private sector is governed by diverse regulatory standards. In fact, only a minority of the private sector is subject to any degree of formal regulation with respect to good governance.
The mere fact that listed entities are subject to formal codes of governance and rules does not mean that they’ve complied with in spirit with a large number purely paying lip service to such obligations.
One also needs to be pragmatic: aping practices that have been adopted elsewhere does not guarantee good governance.
Ground realities such as dual standards of regulation, the unavailability of resources and often, the need to survive in an uneven operational environment that is inherently corrupt have to be factored in when imposing regulatory prescriptions – in the absence of which, the focus of the regulated entities would be to tick boxes as opposed to holistically embracing the spirit of good governance.
THE PUBLIC SECTOR The public sector fares no better: as any citizen would hardly have failed to experience, there is little or no governance in this sector, with a glaring absence of transparency, equity and accountability.
Acts of blatant disregard for even the basic standards of governance emanating from the very top go unchecked and unpunished. Many despair that these standards have become the new norm in an opaque system where excessive discretion, corruption and a blind eye are accepted as a part of life.
THE STAKEHOLDERS The dilemma is how one can stem the rot. At the outset, it is important to recognise that we have vested interests in making an attempt to do so. Bad governance has a heavy and direct cost on all of us and bears upon every aspect of our lives.
This crisis can only be stemmed when we as stakeholders towards whom these responsibilities are owed take meaningful measures to address such acts of abuse.
For a start, acts of abuse cannot be permitted to be swept under the carpet once the initial outcry of indignation is over. Even the existing system, as broken as it is, has checks and balances. However, they do not function on their own; they need to be pressured into action.
Secondly, it is important that there be systemic change to facilitate transparency. This can be relatively easily achieved by resorting to measures such as digitalisation and automation, which limit excessive discretion.
Thirdly, there should be simplification of procedures and rules. The complexity of regulation and procedures is a breeding ground for bad governance.
And finally, regulations should be reevaluated to be both participatory and responsive to win the ‘buy in’ of users so that they are seen as having a purpose rather than an imposition of a burden.
