THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNANCE
2.5 ROLES AND RATIONALE OF GOVERNANCE
Government institutions and governmental functions must, for the purpose of governance, be separated. Even though functions should actually be divided or even separated, the institutions responsibk for the execution of the functions need not be physically or geographically separated. Sufficient control measures should be In place to prevent the abuse of power.
2.4.1.5 Order and welfare functions of the state
According to Gildenhuys (1997:5) the main objective or goal of the economic welfare of the state is the creation, by government, of circumstances where individuals are free and left to develop their personal economic welfare according to their own physical and mental financial abilities.
Some scholars regard the state as a means of combining forces and obtaining instruments to enhance welfare and create order (Botes et al, 1996: 25). Institutions, such as government departments, divisions, sections and various other public entities are established to perform those functions necessary for the population's continued existence.
In view of welfare, the government is expected to act as an entrepreneur, a promoter and a regulator with regard to new ilkas and methods for serving society better (Du Toit & Van der Waldt,
1999:33).
2.5.1 Role of Governance
The role of governance is to create an enabling environment for its citizens, to establish law and order, to manage macro economic stability, build physical and financial infrastructures, r:eiiver essential services and protect the vulnerable. This is critically important for peace, stability and economic prosperity.
In fact, according to the ECA Report (ECA, 1999: 1) the need for a capable, effective and efficient system of governance has never been stronger than today especially in a world characterised by increasing economic globalisation and a highly complex and competitive environment.
Green and Hubbell (1996: 41) argue that when they talk 8.h1ut governance they are addressing an essentially new form of governance. Their arguments are organised around ten principles upon which their new model of governance is founded. Briefly, these principles involve:
• Steering others rather than rowing;
• Empowering customers rather than serving them;
• Injecting competition into service delivery;
• Organising by mission rather than by rules;
• Funding results, not inputs;
• Intense customer orientation;
• Encouraging entrepreneurial earning rather than bureaucratic;
• Focusing on prevention rather than cure;
• Decentralising organisations and fostering teamwork;
• Leveraging change through market-based incentives.
Linked to this new form of governance is what Kibasomba (in Theron
& Schwella, 2000: 95) call constitutional governance. According to
him constitutional governance capitalises on:
• Parliament and Constitution;
• Election, voting systems, adverts, selection interviews;
• The rule of law and organisation;
• Representation and participation;
• Concern for the majority;
• Exclusiveness (the victor runs, the losers await the next election outside the public system);
• Institutionalism, elite mobilisation and participation;
• Economic liberalism and legalism as the key support to politics;
• Restricted and limited time in office (period and mandate); and
• Sovereignty and legitimacy vested in citizenship and individual rights (Kibasomba inTheron & Schwella, 2000: 95).
2.5.2 Rationale for Governance
According to Sing (1999: 88-89), the rationale and challenges for governance in general, and good governance in particular, emanates from the following:
• Recognition that government is for citizens, by citizens and often by or through the involvement of citizens, as opposed to an older notion that saw government doing things for people;
• Highly centralised, rule bound and flexible government institutions that emphasise procedures rather than results and thereby impeding effective performance;
• Globalisation and the weakening of traditional sovereignty;
• New polities and ethnic and cultural resurgence;
• Issue of viability of some states, post-colonial stress and the phenomenon of failed states;
• Information and communication revolution;
• Size and reach of multinational organisations;
• Trade and economic integration;
• Increasing number of issues whose ultimate solutions depend on the active involvement of citizens and which demand changes in attitudes, behaviour and lifestyles;
• Large government debt and fiscal imbalances, exacerbated by recession, all of which place limits on the size of the st::ne and require governments to pursue greater cost-effectiveness in the allocation and management of public resources.
The apparent success of the concept of governance seems to be that it reflects the social need for new initiatives based upon the realisation of growing social interdependencies.
In recent times, and at the level of debate and policy formulation, governance according to Botchwey (1995: 2), has come to raise a number of specific issues going beyond the mere conduct of democratic elections in a country. They include the following (Botchwey, 1995: 2-6):
Firstly, a redefinition o/the role or the changing role o/the state. Here the legitimate sphere of state intervention has tended to be seen more in the minimalist terms involving a "downsizing" of government through redeployment and retrenchment in the public service, and a withdrawal of the state from commercial activity, especially through privatisation and investment of state shares in commercial enterprises.
According to Botchwey (1995: 2) the idea is to redefine the role of the state in the light of the reform experience. There must be a ge'1.'-iine quest for a redefined role for the state and a way of conducting state business that responds to and facilitates the reform agenda as a whole. In practice this should include the creation and maintenance of a stable macroeconomic environment, the maintenance of law and order in the framework of constitutional arrangements, and the provision of basic economic and social infrastructure. The strengthening of the fiscal integrity of the state, the enhancement of the state's capacity for policy formulations, and analysis and competent monitoring of the working of a liberalised economy are also important.
Improved governance thus requires a redefinition of the state in ways that respond to the requirements of sound economic management.
Secondly, an assurance of accountability of government and greater transparency in the entire governmental process. According to Botchwey (1995: 2) the area of governance which is receiving a new focus, and which straddles both the economic and the political spheres, IS the area of accountability and transparency in government. It is accepted that market-oriented economic strategies that realign relative prices in favour of production are an important anchor for good governance.
Transparency and accountability lie at the very core of good governance and open economic strategies, entailing the liberalisation of the exchange trade and payments system. These provide an important foundation for good governance by severely limiting the space for political and administrative discretion in the allocation of resources.
Lastly, the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The political reforms taking place along with economic reform in many African countries today are indeed creating a culture of pluralism that opens up great possibilities for grassroots and professional organisations and business associations (Botchwey, 1995: 5).
NGOs can play a particularly useful complementary role in mobilising popular participation in community-based activities.
There is a need, however, for self-regulation and co-ordination of NGO-activity by the NGOs themselves.
2.5.3 Role of the state in governance
The debate on the role of the state in society and in governance has been propelled by several different developments (Pierre, 2000: 4-5).
Firstly for some time now governments have been believed to be 'overloaded'. This means that they have been unable to resolve all the tasks and demands placed upon them by society. In the 1980s and 1990s these problems were made worse by another serious challenge to state authority. Most advanced western democracies were hit by a severe fiscal crisis which meant that governments could not use financial incentives to ensure compliance among societal actors. The economic plight also forced the states to cut back on their services.
This in turn prompted a search for new strategies of public scn'ice production and delivery (Pierre, 2000: 4).
Secondly, an additional development, which has driven the growing interest in governance, has been the increasing problems of co- ordination. Government has to ensure that public and private projects share the same objectives to some degree (Pierre 2000: 4).
Thirdly, another development which has helped increase the interest in government is the globalisation of the economy and the growing importance of transnational political institutions like the European Union (EU) and World Trade Organisation (WTO). The deregulation of capital in the 1980s set in motion a massive restructuring of both domestic economies and the international economic system (Pierre, 2000: 4 -5).
Finally, governance has also gained ground as a result of the 'failure' of the state (Pierre, 2000: 5). The state-centric view on political processes has contributed to unrealistic expectations on the state's capabilities. The traditional 'tax-and-spend' model of public service delivery has been questioned because of the alleged inefficiency of the public sector compared to the corporate sector.
These issues emphasise the need to develop conceptual frameworks and theories, which will help structure ways of thinking 'luuut governance and the future of the state in society.