Has the concept of good governance been overused and has it become a rather insincere cliché? It is certainly old. The World Bank Development Report of 1997 was on good governance.
1. If I stick to the title, governance assessments simply have to use a human rights perspective; they must identify the specific problems and needs of marginalized population groups in each country and the actions taken (or not) by government to address them. Among other, the assessment must also identify duty bearers and claim holders and advise on how to assess their respective capacities, the same being a) to fulfill their human rights obligations and b) to actively claim their human rights respectively.
2. Let’s take an example: Comparing the indicator ‘utilization of health care facilities’ of children who live in poverty in a country, with the same indicator for the general population (or of other groups in the population) gives us an indication of the level of equality of fulfilling the human right to health in the country in question; the aggregated indicator of utilization of health care facilities of the whole population thus hides the actual fulfillment of this right for the different social groups, notably the most vulnerable. Right? Well, how does this relate to governance? If we take the attributes of good governance: Is it an issue of mismanagement or corruption? No. An issue of transparency? No. An issue of effectiveness? No. But an issue of non-inclusiveness, of accountability, of discrimination, of missing responsiveness and of equality, YES….all these being principles of human rights (HR) to hold governance and governments to account.
3. I urge you to never forget that in governance terms, HR accountability entails: a) detection (determination if there is a HR violation), and most importantly b) correction. Why this reminder? Because better governance does not mean the government will automatically address HR violations and poverty with greater urgency!
4. HR issues in governance, in turn, point us in the direction not only of social and political, but also of legal exclusion giving us an accurate overview of the equal or unequal fulfillment of the concerned HR for different groups in the population.*
*: Beware that social class generates both economic inequality and a pathway to individual ill-health. (C. Muntaner)
5. Not to forget is the fact that, under regimes of both poor and good governance, legality is, more often than not, a privilege accessible only to those with economic and political power.** Law makers may pass laws, but what good are they if they are never implemented? Therefore, the poor classes have no other alternative than to acquire political power. (MarioVargas Llosa)
**: The king said it was night. The minister said it was night. The court said it was night. It was early morning! King and minister (and court?) find a way to negate what really exists as a clear vision. (Carlos Fuentes)
6. Using the HR framework to assess governance, we look at socio-economic issues through a specific human-rights-based lens. Conversely, in daily practice, issues of governance are mainly assessed with socio-economic, administrative and/or development indicators.
7. Indeed, too often, indicators that merely describe the socio-economic situation of a country or region are wrongly taken for an equivalent of the fulfillment (or non-fulfillment) of economic and social rights (ESR) although they do not incorporate any governance or human rights dimension.
8. The pressure that looking at governance from a HR perspective potentially puts on countries that are seen as performing poorly on ESR can be a stimulator for concerned governments to conduct more thorough assessments of the fulfillment of ESR at the country level. (J. Nahem, UNDP)
9. So, should it worry us that neoclassical economists –considered the ‘new intellectuals’– are called upon to be key judges of governance performance? Consider that governance as an issue was neglected by economists for a long time!
10. What also worries me is that there is little evidence that ‘responsible capitalism’ makes capitalism more egalitarian. For welfare states, now so much under attack, to play down their HR-based governance responsibilities and retrogress is simply irresponsible. Little will be achieved in terms of economic inequality if governments do not regulate/nationalize the financial sector, respect public pensions, adopt single payer health care systems, secure living wages… Aren’t these issues of governance?
11. But there is not only worry; there is also hope: Governments are not monolithic! So, do work with sympathetic cadres and non-traditional partners within!
12. In the absence of good governance, poor people are deprived of their right to participation. We have said this repeatedly. As a matter of fact, there is a need to create governance mechanisms that formally or institutionally require that people’s voices and contributions be part and parcel of key decision-making processes, especially those that will have direct impact on the lives of those who are marginalized. In principle, it should no longer be optional nor should it be up to the good will of any policy/decision-maker. If we are really serious about empowering people to participate then we also need to address this challenge. (R. Zambrano)
13. Bottom line, as much as about climate change, bad governance is about market failures and greed on a global scale. (A. Bowen) So, ultimately, it will be civic and political struggles that will lead to good governance. Will the post-2015 agenda launch such an era?
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org