Governance and Democratisation Bds 123 (Bpir 230)

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT
GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATISATION BDS 123 (BPIR 230) /
MODULE IN GOVERNANCE
and
DEMOCRATISATION
DANIEL BOWASI /
8/10/2013

Preface

The module is prepared primarily for students taking Governance and Democratisation. It is organised based on the course outline of the Governance and Democratisation

The course Governance and Democratisation BDS 123 (BBIR 230) provides a foundation in Governance and Democratisation for undergraduate students. The course has been designed to give a student insight into the basics of Governance and Democratisation. Topics include: theoretical basis of understating governance and democratisation;good governance; definitions and dimensions of decentralisation. Attempt has also been made to draw examples from some neighbouring countries.

Copyright

All rights are reserved. No part of this module may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means or stored in any retrieval system, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the university.

School of Business, Economics and Management

Pioneer Campus

Off AlickNkhata Road Mass Media

P. o. Box 36711, Lusaka

ZAMBIA

Fax ++260 211 233409

E-mail unilus @zamnet.zm

Website: www. Unilus. Ac. Zm

CONTENT

GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATISATION- BDS 123 (BPIR 230)

Definitions and dimensions of decentralization.

Theories of decentralization in development economics.

A comparative study of decentralization

The social, political and economic underpinnings of decentralization

Decentralization at different levels of government

Decentralization and people participation

Decentralization policy in Zambia

UNIT 1

INTRODUCTION TO GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRATISATION

Introduction

Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure "good governance" are undertaken. This unit tries to explain, what "governance" and "good governance" means.

GOVERNANCE

The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put"governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as:

• Corporate governance;
• International governance;
• National governance; and
• Local governance.

Since governance is the process of decisionmakingand the process by which decisionsare implemented, an analysis of governancefocuses on the formal and informal actorsinvolved in decision-making andimplementing the decisions made and theformal and informal structures that have beenset in place to arrive at and implement thedecision.

Government is one of the actors ingovernance. Other actors involved ingovernance vary depending on the level ofgovernment that is under discussion. In ruralareas, for example, other actors may includeinfluential land lords, associations of peasantfarmers, cooperatives, NGOs, researchinstitutes, religious leaders, financeinstitutions political parties, the military etc.

The situation in urban areas is much morecomplex. At the national level, inaddition to the above actors, media,lobbyists, international donors, multi-nationalcorporations, etc. may play a role in decisionmakingor in influencing the decision-makingprocess.

All actors other than government and themilitary are grouped together as part of the"civil society." In some countries in addition tothe civil society, organized crime syndicatesalso influence decision-making, particularly inurban areas and at the national level.Similarly formal government structures areone means by which decisions are arrived atand implemented. At the national level,informal decision-making structures, such as"kitchen cabinets" or informal advisors mayexist. In urban areas, organized crimesyndicates such as the "land Mafia" mayinfluence decision-making. In some ruralareas locally powerful families may make orinfluence decision-making. Such, informaldecision-making is often the result of corruptpractices or leads to corrupt practices.

Good Governance

The following are the 8 major characteristics of Good Governance:

It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitableand inclusive and follows the rule of law. Itassures that corruption is minimized, theviews of minorities are taken into accountand that the voices of the most vulnerable insociety are heard in decision-making. It isalso responsive to the present and futureneeds of society.

Participation

Participation by both men and women is akey cornerstone of good governance.Participation could be either direct or throughlegitimate intermediate institutions orrepresentatives. It is important to point outthat representative democracy does notnecessarily mean that the concerns of themost vulnerable in society would be takeninto consideration in decision making.Participation needs to be informed andorganized. This means freedom ofassociation and expression on the one handand an organized civil society on the otherhand.

Rule of law

Good governance requires fair legalframeworks that are enforced impartially. Italso requires full protection of human rights,particularly those of minorities. Impartialenforcement of laws requires an independentjudiciary and an impartial and incorruptiblepolice force.

Transparency

Transparency means that decisions takenand their enforcement are done in a mannerthat follows rules and regulations. It alsomeans that information is freely available anddirectly accessible to those who will beaffected by such decisions and theirenforcement. It also means that enoughinformation is provided and that it is providedin easily understandable forms and media.

Responsiveness

Good governance requires that institutionsand processes try to serve all stakeholderswithin a reasonable timeframe.

Consensus oriented

There are several actors and as many viewpoints in a given society. Good governancerequires mediation of the different interests insociety to reach a broad consensus in societyon what is in the best interest of the wholecommunity and how this can be achieved. Italso requires a broad and long-termperspective on what is needed forsustainable human development and how toachieve the goals of such development. Thiscan only result from an understanding of thehistorical, cultural and social contexts of agiven society or community.

Equity and inclusiveness

A society’s well being depends on ensuringthat all its members feel that they have astake in it and do not feel excluded from themainstream of society. This requires allgroups, but particularly the most vulnerable,have opportunities to improve or maintaintheir well being.

Effectiveness and efficiency

Good governance means that processes andinstitutions produce results that meet theneeds of society while making the best use ofresources at their disposal. The concept ofefficiency in the context of good governancealso covers the sustainable use of naturalresources and the protection of theenvironment.

Accountability

Accountability is a key requirement of goodgovernance. Not only governmentalinstitutions but also the private sector andcivil society organizations must beaccountable to the public and to theirinstitutional stakeholders. Who isaccountable to whom varies depending onwhether decisions or actions taken areinternal or external to an organization orinstitution. In general an organization or aninstitution is accountable to those who will beaffected by its decisions or actions.Accountability cannot be enforced withouttransparency and the rule of law.

Conclusion

From the above discussion it should be clear thatgood governance is an ideal which is difficult toachieve in its totality. Very few countries andsocieties have come close to achieving goodgovernance in its totality. However, to ensuresustainable human development, actions must betaken to work towards this ideal with the aim ofmaking it a reality.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This unit examines the relationship between democratisation and governance on one hand, and administrative reform on the other. It argues thatadministrative reform is an essential prerequisite to democratisation andgovernance and that any attempt to delink the three concepts will makedemocratisation and governance a farce(Ndue, 2005). In other words, any politicalreform at democratizing institutions, in particular the founding of a pluralisticdemocracy, will only be fully effective insofar as it is accompanied by farreaching administrative reforms which effectively redistribute power. The unit also discusses the implications of this link between democratisation,governance and administrative reform for public administration in Africa.

Democratisation

Democratization can be understood in threedifferent ways namely:

• The introduction of democracy in a non-democratic regime.
• Next, democratization can be understood as the deepening of the democratic qualities of given democracies.
• Finally, democratization involves the question of the survival of democracy.

Technically speaking, the emergence,the deepening, and the survival of democracy arestrictly distinct aspects of democratization. But theymerge in the question of sustainable democratization,that is, the emergence of democracies that developand endure. Democratization is sustainable to theextent to which it advances in response to pressuresfrom within a society.

UNIT 2

DEMOCRATISATION AND GOVERNANCE

WHAT IS DEMOCRATISATION?

The concept democratisation does not have a precise definition. In simple terms democratisation has thecriteria of regular electoral competitions, usually in a multiparty politicalsystem, and has the characteristics of governmental succession by constitutional, electoralprocedures, guaranteed in the rule of law.

On the other hand, themaximalist “socio-economic” delineation of democratisation include thecriteria such as redistributive socio-economic reforms, broadened popularparticipation, social justice and human rights (Qadir et. al., 193:416).

According to EllyRunierse (1993) three stages of the process ofdemocratization may be discerned:

• First, is the political liberalization, which has been defined as the process “in which the fear of repression is relaxed and there are constitutional guarantees of a range of political freedoms (especially the recognition of the right of opposition groupings to function and to express dissent) in which there is greater independence for legislative assemblies where they still exist, and freedom of the press”. (Healey and Robinson, 1992:22).
• To Qadiret. al. (1993:416), political liberalization is a process of political change controlled from the top down,as means of preserving most of the status quo. They seem to be cynical of political liberalization, which they regard as the “game the elites play to manage the granting of very carefully selected concessions… a cosmetic exercise and does not install the fundamentals of democratization”.
• Qadir et al. (1993:416-417) however concede that political change escapes from elite control to encompass broader social forces and its purpose is transformed from the preservation to the status quo of interests to genuine reform. They conclude that the processes of democratization and political liberalization are distinct, and only the “truly deserving cases should be referred to as democratization, where ultimate outcome of the process and its agency are almost the reverse of political liberalization” (Qadir, 1993:417). Anything short of this is to “trivialize the concept of democratization, and worse still, to mislead people”. (Qadir et. al., 1993: 417) AdrainLedtwich (1993:616) takes their warning further by pointing that “faith in the economic and political liberalism of the minimal state as the universally appropriate means of development is deeply flawed”. Perhaps a more forceful and cynical attempt to press home the point that democratization and political liberalization are not the same and are therefore distinct has been made by lemarchand (1992:183-184): For, if by “liberalization” is meant the dismantling of dictatorships, there are good reasons to assume that liberalization can occur without democratization and that in some parts of Africa the disintegration of authoritarian rule may be followed by anarchy or intensified corruption.

• Second, it is the process of growing political accountability which has been viewed as a “move towards more inclusive politics, even within a single party system, through the introduction of measures to extend societal participation in political decision-making” (Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).

• Third, is to regard democratization as a historical process rather than an end state that seems to involve “the introduction of universal suffrage and genuine political competition with free and fair elections to decide who will take power” (Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).should be referred to as democratization, where ultimate outcome of the process and its agency are almost the reverse of political liberalization” (Qadir, 1993:417). Anything short of this is to “trivialize the concept of democratization, and worse still, to mislead people”. (Qadir et. al., 1993: 417).

• AdrainLedtwich (1993:616) takes their warning further by pointing that “faith in the economic and political liberalism of the minimal state as the universally appropriate means of development is deeply flawed”. Perhaps a more forceful and cynical attempt to press home the point that democratization and political liberalization are not the same and are therefore distinct has been made by lemarchand (1992:183-184): For, if by “liberalization” is meant the dismantling of dictatorships, there are good reasons to assume that liberalization can occur without democratization and that in some parts of Africa the disintegration of authoritarian rule may be followed by anarchy or intensified corruption.

Democratisation is also viewed as the process of growing political accountability which has beenviewed as a “move towards more inclusive politics, even within a singlepartysystem, through the introduction of measures to extend societalparticipation in political decision-making” (Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).

Third, is to regard democratization as a historical process rather than anend state that seems to involve “the introduction of universal suffrage andgenuine political competition with free and fair elections to decide who willtake power” (Healey and Robinson, 1992:151).

UNIT 3

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRATISATIONAND GOVERNANCE

1.0THE RELATIONSHIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOCRATIZATION AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

Democratization has been linked to good governance, which the WorldBank defines as, “… the exercise of political power to manage a nation’saffairs” (World Bank, 1989:60) and also regards it as being synonymous with sounddevelopment (World Bank, 1992-1).

The relationship betweendemocratization and good governance, supported and promoted byinstitutions such as the World Bank, United States, British and Frenchgovernments, the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), the European Council and the Commonwealth Secretariat, isbased on the fact that the latter (good governance) has the ingredients,features, the functional and institutional prerequisites as well as the buildingblocks of democratization. These include:

• An efficient public service;
• Anindependent judicial system and legal framework;
• The accountable administration of public funds ;
• An independent public auditor, representative legislature;
• Respect for the law and human rights at all levels of government;
• A pluralistic institutional structure; and
• A free press (World Bank, 1989:6, 15, 60-61, 192).

According to Leftwich (1993; 1994) the concept of “democratic good governance” has the three main levels of meaning which can be classified into:

• Systemic;
• Political; and
• Administrative.

SYSTEMIC: In this sense, good governance denotes the structures of political and crucially, economic relationships and rules by which the productive and distributive life of a society is governed (Leftwich, 1993:611; Leftwich, 1994:371). In short, good governance means a “democratic capitalist” regime presided over bya minimal state which forms part of the wider governance of the New WorldOrder (World Bank, 1989; World Bank, 1992; Healey and Robinson;Leftwich 1994).

Second, from a political sense, good governance presupposes a regime or state which enjoys legitimacy and authority, derived from a democratic mandate and built on the traditional liberal notion of a clear separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Whether in a presidential or parliamentary system, this presupposes a pluralist polity with a freely and regularly elected representative legislature, with the capacity at least to influence and check executive power (Leftwich, 1993: Leftwich, 1994).

Third, from an administrative point of view, good governance means an efficient, independent, accountable and open audited public service which has the bureaucratic competence to help design and implement appropriate policies and manage whatever public sector there is. It also

entails an independent judicial system to uphold the law and resolve disputes arising in a largely free market economy. The administrative aspect of good governance focuses on four main areas of public administration in general and public sector management in particular. They are:

• accountability, which in essence means holding officials responsible for their actions;
• a legal framework for development, which means a structure of rules and laws which provide clarity, predictability and stability for the private sector, which are impartially and fairly applied to all, and which provide the basis for conflict resolution through an independent judicial system;
• information, by which is meant that information about economic conditions, budgets, markets and government intentions is reliable and accessible to all, something which is crucial for private sector calculations;
• insistence on transparency, which is basically a call for open government, to enhance accountability, limit corruption and stimulate consultative processes between government and private interests over policy development (World Bank, 1992; Leftwich, 1993; Leftwich, 1993).

Viewed from the foregoing connotations of good governance, it is no wonder that the concept is inseparable from the process of democratization.

2.0. WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM?

Like democratization, the concept of administrative reform does not lenditself to a clear-cut definition. However, the definition, which is commonlyused because of its comprehensiveness and scope, is the one offered byGerald Caiden (1969). According to Caiden (1960:65) administrative reformis the “artificial inducement of administrative need to improve on the

status), artificial transformation (departure from existing arrangements andnatural change processes), and administrative resistance (opposition isassumed). Administrative reform is political rather than merelyorganizational. It is “a political process designed to adjust the relationshipbetween a bureaucracy and other elements in society or within thebureaucracy itself” (Montgomery, 1967:17). Succinctly put, administrativereform is:

Power politics in action; it contains ideological rationalization, fights forcontrol of areas, services, and people, political participants andinstitutions… (Caiden, 1969:9).

Administrative reform has a “moral content” in that it seeks to create a“better” system by removing faults and imperfections. It is usuallyundertaken to change the status quo for the better. It aims at making theadministrative and political structures and procedures compatible withbroader goals. Administrative reform sets additional political values to beused as yardsticks against which administrative performance may bejudged. The crux of administrative reform, therefore, is innovation andwealth creation that is, injection of new ideas and new people in a newcombination of tasks and relationships into the policy and administrativeprocess. Administrative reform may occur where two conditions are met.