RIGHTS-BASED GOVERNANCE OR GOOD GOVERNANCE? AN EXAMINATION OF ANTINOMIES IN CURRENT THINKING ON GOVERNANCE

 

Conceptually, governance is the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage the affairs of a particular state at all levels. In this sense, it comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, assert their rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. As a concept, governance is different from mere ‘government’ or ‘administration’ in that governance encapsulates political values and processes such as pluralism and accountability, which are not necessarily part and parcel of every governmental or administrative process.

If this definition of governance is accepted, then the term ‘good governance’ which has gained currency in recent political economy literature is at worst a misnomer and at best tautological. This is because governance by definition already incorporates notions of accountability, pluralism, transparency, and respect for the rule of law and fundamental human rights which are normally listed as basic elements of good, as opposed to bad (undemocratic), governance.

Rights-based governance on the other hand refers essentially to the idea that the governance process is located within a rights-framework broadly defined by the people. The sole aim of government within this framework is therefore to fulfill the entitlements (rights) of the citizenry. It differs from good governance in the sense that whereas good governance or its elements as enumerated above constitutes mere criteria for determining whether and to what extent a state has democratized sufficiently so as to qualify for external financial assistance, rights-based governance is people-centered and is measured by the extent to which basic entitlements needed for the full realization of human potential and capacities have been met by the state.

The good governance paradigm, promoted mostly by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has become a model for developing countries seeking to organize (or reorganize) their societies along paths historically proven to lead to development. Good governance is held up as the panacea to most, if not all, of the economic ailments that afflict countries of the developing world. This belief, deep-seated as it is, has led to the sweeping processes of democratization witnessed in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Asia.

Given that most of these experiments in democratic governance are yet to yield economic dividends, it may be too early in the day to draw any valid conclusions regarding the broad position adopted by the World Bank, the IMF and their major shareholders. It is not enough to argue that the view that good governance leads to economic development is validated simply by reference to the progress made by, say, the American economy, over the last two hundred years. But America may provide some clues as to whether and to what extent good governance (democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights) conduces to the economic prosperity of nations.

Whatever it virtues as a model for political and economic development, the good governance paradigm has swung so dangerously close to the market that it has ignored, again dangerously, non-market values that bring about social cohesion or prevent social disequilibria. The good governance paradigm threatens to turn our society into a market society based on transactional principles to the exclusion of social values.

My name is Kofi Anokye, a Sustainable Development Enthusiast and Managing Partner at ANOKS Research. I’m making my perfect grain of sand. Make yours too, and we’ll build a sustainable city, brick by brick.