Civil Society and Good Governance

The role of civil society in good governance

We have a representative parliamentary democracy leaving the decision-making to a small group of elected representatives. This could result in a government ‘of’ the people becoming a government ‘off’ the people. Progressive marketizations of traditional government functions have widened this gap. There is a gap between the not-so-efficient state and the profit-alone-matters private sector which needs a third sector to bridge it. This is how a civil society is looked at today.

What is Good Governance?

Before talking more about the role of civil society in good governance we must have understood what is mean by good governance. And I think the first part of this article will give in-depth meaningful things which can be help to understand the major role of civil society in good governance. Because insist of came to know the problem blame game if take place , it become more difficult to solve. And for that this first part is an important.

The good governance paradigm fails to question the unequal and unjust macroeconomic framework that serves the interests of rich countries and rich people and perpetuates inequality and poverty. It does not emphasise the notion of freedom and rights. Hence, the good governance paradigm fails to ensure accountability from global institutions like the Bank, UN, IMF, WTO and G-8. Malaysia and Indonesia were supposed to have good governance according to the parameters of the IMF and WB, though its citizens were denied freedom.

There are six broad clusters that can be considered under people-centred and rights-based governance:

• Governance and Development: Development is the realisation of all human rights, particularly socio-economic rights, wherein people can enjoy freedom from fear and freedom from want and live a life of dignity. Accountable (accountability and answerability are functions of power and hence political rather than technical) governance is a means towards claiming socio-economic rights. It is in this context that the Millennium Declaration and MDGs become important policy promises that help us seek accountability from powerholders in governance, whether local, national, global or dominant.

• Governance and Participation: The political participation of citizens, particularly women, requires both socio-political mobilisation and the knowledge/capacity to monitor governance. This requires both knowledge-based activism and grassroots mobilisation. Participation is the sharing of power and the ability to influence the process and outcome of decision-making. Participation becomes meaningful when people have enabling spaces, mechanisms and the power to participate. The monitoring of governance is a way to participate in governance and policymaking and influence processes.

• Governance and Rights: The institutional approach to governance requires the monitoring of the judicial delivery system and the executive. Monitoring institutions of governance (as distinct from monitoring public policies) like the legislature, executive, judiciary and media is crucial in asserting and advancing rights by reinforcing accountability within the institutional arena.

• Corporate Accountability: Big corporations and capital markets increasingly shape economic governance. And economic governance has taken precedence over both political and social governance. The key shapers and movers of economic governance are the unaccountable and non-transparent multinational corporations that control the market and media and thrive on unaccountable and unjust governance systems. In this process, shareholders, consumers, communities and employees get marginalised and lose their power to seek accountability. Seeking accountability and monitoring the action and governance of big corporations will challenge their influence on institutions of governance within the State and also force accountability within the market.

• Democratising Global Governance: There are new supranational and international institutions that wield more power than governments in the developing world. These institutions, particularly the IMF, World Bank, WTO and various regional banks (such as the Asian Development Bank) tend to seek accountability from national governments for the economic and political conditions imposed on them. The problem is that when unaccountable and undemocratic organisations like the World Bank or IMF seek accountability and ‘promote’ democracy, they promote unequal and unjust power relations that thrive on a patriarchal relationship between the rich and poor countries or the old colonial masters or new imperialists and their erstwhile colonies of poor countries. Democratising global governance institutions and accountability and transparency are therefore part of our struggle against unjust institutional systems that perpetuate poverty.

• Accountable Civil Society Organisations: Accountability cannot be a one-way street. CSOs must be accountable too. The legitimacy of CSOs and NGOs is being increasingly questioned as many of them are perceived as ‘private initiatives’ (enterprises or businesses) for the public good. Many of these institutions are seen as private contractors for public development. A rights-based approach requires that all organisations that work with civil society or within civil society need to be transparent and accountable. This can only be done when there is a governance system that promotes accountability, transparency, rights and participation: all these together provide moral and political legitimacy to such organisations.

There are a number of good methods and approaches to promote accountable governance: budget tracking, participatory monitoring, planning processes, citizens’ charters, report cards, women’s political participation, public hearings, and public interest litigation are some effective tools. But all these are only possible when people are empowered to ask questions, seek accountability and claim their rights from all the institutions that seek to monopolise and control power at the social, political and economic level. Our perspective on governance should be informed by the perspective of people’s empowerment, participation, public accountability and transparency, human rights and legitimacy based on the principles of democracy.

Core ingredients

Governance is the process by which a society manages itself through the mechanism of the state. The core ingredients of good governance are; People’s effective participation, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equality and inclusiveness, the rule of law, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, and strategic vision.

These are crucially value-laden and constitute the bedrock of democracy.

Innumerable administrative reforms commission have produced no appreciable impact on the quality of governance. The emphasis now is on facilitating external pressure from citizens on the system to improve through the Right to Information Act, Consumer Protection Act, Citizens Charters, Whistleblower protection, e-governance, Report card, democratic decentralisation, Public Interest Litigation, etc.

Governance has three levels-internal systems and procedure; cutting edge systems and procedures; and check-and-balance systems

At level (a), a civil society can influence policy and project formulation through membership of committees, submission of elected representatives, and interactive rule-making in the implementation of policies, projects and schemes affecting citizens. The maximum day–to-day interaction between the government and the citizens take place and the popular image of governance is formed at level (b).

Interaction of civil society with level (c), infrequent but important, will be more of an exposure of irregularities rather than steps for improvement in the quality of governance.

Functional contribution

Civil society’s functional contribution to good governance could be:

* As a Watchdog - against violation of human rights and governing deficiencies.

* As an Advocate - of the weaker section’s point of view.

* As an Agitator - on behalf of the aggrieved citizens.

* As an Educator - of citizens and their right, entitlements and responsibilities and the government about the pulse of the people.

* As a Service provider-to areas and people not reached by official efforts or as government’s agent.

* As a Mobilizer - of public opinion for or against a programme or policy.

Civil society acts through ‘social capital’ which is the capacity of people to act together willingly for their common long –term interests. Social capital is strong in a homogeneous and an egalitarian society.

Civil society as a whole is, therefore, unable to play it’s full potential role in enforcing good governance in India except when extraordinary leadership overcomes narrow loyalties, or when an issue is of common, major concern to all sections (like natural calamities). Smaller units of governance and decentralisation of governance are, therefore, indispensable in India.

Individuals can not take on the huge political-bureaucratic machine that the government is, nor can the entire civil society act on behalf of every citizen. Civil society, therefore, has to operate through a compact, focused organisation based on strong social capital. The Government of India’s National Policy on the Voluntary Sector, 2006 encouraging an independent, creative and effective voluntary sector. Support for NGO’s however, can not be blindly sentimental. The government has to assess their suitability, capability and experience, and evaluate their performance continually.

Efforts to improve the quality of governance will fail if the quality and calibre of the political executive is unsatisfactory. Civil society needs to note the deterioration in the quality, integrity and commitment of the elected representatives and the criminalisation of politics. Voter education, electoral reform and periodical highlighting of the performance (or non-performance) of elected representatives are high priority items in civil society’s agenda.

Democracy is not a spectator sport (though politicians make a spectacle of themselves!) Parliamentary democracy becomes participative democracy only with the civil society’s active role and participation.