Good governance (I) - Introduction

Go-ver-nance: decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of management or leadership processes.

In societies, and foremost in developed ones, a public post holds the responsibility for the area for which it is appointed to. A responsibility implies that such a governing body and its decision-makers are accountable for all the decisions and that those decisions should be for the benefit of general interest. Never to the interest of a few individual key-role players. In the "developed countries", where there is a long tradition of democratic political mechanisms, the term "good governance" is further defines the required (and acceptable!) aspects of the roles and responsibilities of such a public decision making organ.

Good governance, next to its implied management and leadership roles, adds a few specifics. In short one could put forward that the basis of good governance consists of participation, regulation, transparency, responsiveness, consensus, inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency. One could justly argue, that "leadership" itself implies these qualities, yet applying certain tools and therefore executing (even bad) leading functions at the exploit of others could also be regarded as leadership. This aside, however.

As we face a financial crisis (at least, at the time when I am typing this article), many public decisions are requiring some change and many organisations and governments are - sometimes somewhat startled and panic-struck - have halted some decision-making activities altogether. From a human point of view, understandably, up to a certain extent.

Yet, for the past few years, I have unfortunately observed a few trends (so even way before the crisis started) which cast deep doubts, whether the involved parties would have faintest notion of what good governance indeed is. Instead, there is visibly a high occurrence in indifference, favouritism, bureaucratic incompetence, even corruption. Whereas the public office is expected to act in the general interest, party politics and personal ties supercede any logical, visionary or strategic conduct. This is therefore completely detached from any crisis, global or regional. In the end, all benevolence of the public and credibility of yourself turns into a sour atmosphere of suspicion. In case of true interest to (in case the suspicion is not founded) reveal openess to assure the public of the right objectives. Yet, none of this happens, and the suspicion therefore is ... indeed: affirmed - at least to the appearance.

Such a state, is harming all involved, especially those whom the public organ is to serve.

MS