Today, one of the prime motivators in the international community is couched under the elusive term of 'good governance': governments say they try to promote it; NGOs try to shape it; and international organisations try to influence it. Reinforcing the perception that the quest for 'good governance' is now a priority item, is the fact that foreign aid, private funding sources, industry-based foundations, and regional granting bodies, such as the European Union, are all earmarking the governance issue as the single most important leverage point in charting the safe passage of societies through time.

It is perhaps inevitable that, at times, the word is over-used, abused or used as a competing, not complementary, issue on the international agenda. Thus, for some the idea of promoting 'good governance' as a concept in the short term, is more manageable and achievable than, for example, the long term provision of sustainable development in a secure environment. Little do they realise how much these are linked.

The governance debate, as Smith and Stacey indicate, is usually referred to in terms of the "efficacy of formal structures to ensure a degree of co-operation sufficient to bring about order in human affairs."¹ Adding to the complexity implied in this formulation, there are variations to the theme. Thus, we talk of governance not only at the national level, but also internationally as indicated in existing terms such as 'multilateral governance'² and 'global governance.'³

Irrespective of type, governance issues broadly place a strong emphasis on the need to connect rights and responsibilities, linking the privileges and obligations of leadership and citizenship at all levels of society. At the national level, the emphasis would then be placed on improving structures of government agencies, promoting citizen participation in the democratic process, formulating public policies for the 'common good', and improving public service.⁴

Regionally and internationally, the issue of governance becomes more diffuse. Here, the emphasis is on contrasting the pros and cons of nation-states acting in unison for specific purposes. On the positive side, multilateral governance provides:

mechanisms for burden and information sharing;



co-operative development of norms, principles, and rules of the game upon which the prospects of regional/international order and wealth, as well as the resolution of common problems and threats depend; and



the establishment of more stable infrastructures for ongoing co-operation and relations than ad hoc functional arrangements.⁵



Moreover, exercising multilateral governance becomes the embodiment of a procedural norm in itself which provides legitimacy to all member states.⁶ In short, multilateral governance allows for the ultimate "strengthening of a common identity and a common purpose"⁷ at the subregional, regional and/or international level.

On the negative side, state actors alone, even if they choose to co-operate among themselves, are not the only movers of the regional and international agenda. The "enormous growth of general concern for human rights, democracy, environment, and meeting basic human needs"⁸ has mustered a multitude of non-state actors who influence policy formulation in one way or the other. Thus, the most difficult issue of multilateral governance is that of co-ordinating various processes and arrangements, and taking into account all actors to the debate, both nation-states and otherwise. In other words, can multilateral or global governance take into account the needs, voices, and inputs of civil society at large?

Without leading to such revolutionary concepts as that of 'people as sovereign',⁹ this type of questioning explains the emphasis given to international governance issues: reform of regional and international organisations and systems, global and regional partnerships, the international establishment of Rule of Law, the redefinition of the rights and responsibilities of nations and states, and the need to enrich regional and global civil society.¹⁰ The way these items are linked has to do with the idea that in a co-operative world structure the notion of "subsidiarity" should prevail, in other words, "in a universal system problems are best dealt with at the most local level possible."¹¹ The interconnectedness between global, regional, national and local levels becomes apparent. It is then possible to suggest that the authority and legitimacy of all governance institutions ultimately derives from the consent of the governed.

With the connection made between governance processes and its lowest common denominator, it might be appropriate to analyse the meaning of 'good governance'. Going back to the description of the governance debate provided by Smith and Stacey as the "efficacy of formal structures to ensure a degree of co-operation sufficient to bring about order in human affairs",¹² it is possible to infer a more detailed understanding of what good governance means.

The key words in the above description are efficacy, formal structures and co-operation. Efficacy is intimately linked to time, transparency and accountability. Formal structures refer to an operational diffusion point that will transform expressed needs and political objectives into concrete actions. But these structures do not have the power to implement, they merely serve to enable the communities to take the action required for their well-being. Finally, co-operation is tied to vertical and horizontal co-ordination of efforts required to bring about the desired change.

Nevertheless, the ultimate objective of the whole governance exercise must never be forgotten: it is not to provide or facilitate the pursuit of individual agendas, it is the achievement of order in human affairs. It follows that 'good governance' achieves order through the facilitation of co-operation and not through complex forms of red-tape, by irresponsible open-handedness, or by even more simple forms of enforcement.

We now know what 'good governance' is. We also know that governance institutions should be representative of, responsive to and accountable to the people; that this process must highlight both the responsibilities and the rights of citizens; and that its ultimate objective is the achievement of order to best serve the common good. What we do not know is how to implement these notions in a process that will invariably lead to 'good governance'.

As the Open Society initiative knows so well, almost any item in the local, national and regional agenda that promotes social well-being can be placed under the general umbrella of promoting good governance. But, there are two issues which can help almost all governance initiatives along: the correct preparation and the correct approach. The correct preparation applies to the enrichment of civil society; the correct approach, to the flexibility with which governance is applied.

The enrichment of civil society is a fundamental pillar of governance, and education is the most important prerequisite of a civil society. Basic skills, educational opportunities for all and civic education are the minimum needed to enrich civil society. But, developing civility also requires social institutions and their leaders to act responsibly.¹³ That is why corruption – like disorder, insecurity, and paternalism – is a fierce enemy of good governance and, therefore, of the people. This is the reason why education must not disregard the importance of civic training skills and basic ethical standards; and why the example set by the leaders of society is so fundamental.

But enriching society does not always constitute the only mechanism for good governance. To achieve this ultimate objective, governance must revise its approach. The question here should be whether the capacity to govern is a function of the effectiveness of top-down policy-making and control by formal authorities? Or is the capacity to govern a much more spontaneous function of the potential for bottom-up development?¹⁴ The answer is that both the top-down and bottom-up approach are needed for the creation of good governance. One cannot assume that people in authority formulate policy and have the capacity to link it back to local actions. The reality is that the governance debate needs a stronger focus on the dynamics of human systems and on the capacity of the informal shadows of formal systems to produce emergent order, which may or may not be in line with the intentions of those in authority.¹⁵

Thus, governance today can be successful if it becomes the medium by means of which informal networks that function in competition with the formal systems¹⁶ can be efficiently co-ordinated to achieve a common objective, a common objective that can only be in relation to the well-being of the people.

By managing the spontaneous movements generated informally in co-ordination with official structures and policies, flexibility and adaptability are greatly increased. Good governance is the responsible management of a flexible process that is alive, a perpetual action that serves to produce oxygen to the community of men. In this task, leaders and citizens alike share responsibility and rights while institutions provide the mechanism that will transform top-down and bottom-up ideas into action. But a responsible approach which takes leadership direction and people's inputs into account, will only be fully empowered if civil society is enriched.

In summary, the concept of good governance is not a difficult one. What is difficult is its successful implementation. There are two keys for the latter to happen: flexibility in the approach taken, and enrichment of society through the infusion of multi-layered education skills. The more empowered the people, the better the input they provide to leadership. If this process is funnelled through effective and flexible co-ordinating institutions, the greater the potential will be to achieve order and well-being. It is in information, responsible behaviour and co-operation that good governance is achieved.

ENDNOTES

M Y Smith and R Stacey, Governance and Co-operative Networks: An Adaptive Systems Perspective, Elsevier Science Inc., New York, 1997, p. 79.



See, for example, Inter-American Dialogue Study Group on Western Hemisphere Governance, The Inter-American Agenda and Multilateral Governance: The Organization of American States, Washington DC, April 1997.



Developed from discussions by the Council on Foreign Relations' Commission for Global Governance, New York,1993.



As eloquently expressed in the Ford Foundation's guidelines for governance and public policy grantmaking.



Ibid.



Inter-American Dialogue Study Group on Western Hemisphere Governance, op. cit., p. 2.



Ibid.



Ibid.



Formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, op. cit.



Some of the points which the Commission for Global Governance in New York set forward as main agendas.



Inter-American Dialogue Study Group on Western Hemisphere Governance, op. cit., p. 3.



Smith and Stacey, op. cit.



One of the major recommendations of the Commission for Global Governance; see Council on Foreign Relations, op. cit.



Ibid.



Ibid.



Ibid.