|
By John Samuel Governance used to be seen as the techno-managerial functions of the state. Today, governance is increasingly influenced by market forces, civil society processes and citizens initiatives. Therefore, both state and non-state actors must be held accountable for ensuring a just, people-centred and human rights-based approach to governance
Why governance matters
Need for an alternative vision
Whose ‘good’ governance is it anyway?
Just and democratic governance
Characteristics of just and democratic governance
Democratising global governance Justice and power should be brought together, so that whatever just may be powerful, and whatever powerful may be just -- Pascal. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere -- Martin Luther King Understanding governance Governance is an overarching concept with many dimensions and institutional and political manifestations. Conventionally understood, governance is the way the state and its various institutions negotiate and mediate with people, markets and civil society, through laws, policies, regulation and finance. But the concept of governance has grown over the last 15 years to exceed the conventional arena of the nation-state or government. The process of governance is increasingly influenced by market forces as well as civil-society processes and citizen initiatives. There are multiple perspectives, understandings and approaches to governance. Often it is the techno-managerial or institutional or policy dimensions of governance that get more attention. The discourse on governance has grown as a parallel discourse to that of civil society, human rights and globalisation. Such a discourse often privileges local governance and global governance as a corollary of economic globalisation and the neo-liberal policy framework. I. Why governance matters Governance signifies various forms of power in various institutional arenas (both governmental and non-governmental) where public policies are formulated, legitimised and implemented. Governance implies the institutional as well as political means to participate in public policy and social processes, to claim human rights and to ensure inclusive citizenship. It also provides institutional and legal interfaces through which citizens mediate and interact with the state and seek accountability. Fighting poverty and injustice requires the realisation of rights and justice through accountable governance. Governance becomes accountable only when people are empowered to ask questions, seek justice and claim participation. Thus, accountable governance and empowerment of citizens and marginalised people are the prerequisites for claiming human rights and fighting poverty and injustice. Governance is to do with power in its different manifestations in different institutional settings. Power is multi-dimensional, dynamic, contextual and relative. Power relations within a society or institutional spaces are often driven by or negotiated through history, culture, identity formations and economy. Often, unequal and unjust power relations such as patriarchy, various forms of exclusion and discrimination (based on gender, class, race and identity) are shaped and sustained by the processes and institutions of governance. In most societies and countries, governance also implies management of the public sphere and institutional spaces through hegemonic power relations and political means of domination by coercion as well as consent. Unfortunately, the increasing trend of the marketisation of the state, media, development and knowledge often reduces the idea and practice of governance to a management tool to address issues of public management, service delivery, and the legitimisation of powerful market forces, multilateral organisations and countries. Often, it is the ‘power elite’ within a country or institution that controls the process of governance. Such power elites have now become global forces, controlling transnational corporations, media businesses, academic institutions and global institutions. The processes and institutions of governance become a means for subjugation, subversion and delusion when power elites control the character and content of the discourse on ‘good governance’ or ‘global governance’. II. Need for an alternative vision This is why we need to articulate and promote an alternative vision, perspective and practice of governance. Unless there is a clear vision and ideal about a JUST world, and practical strategies to move towards it, the content and character of governance will remain an arena of power manipulations, policy rhetoric and empty promises. This paper is an effort to articulate governance as a deeply ethical as well as political process, based on justice, freedom, solidarity and human dignity. Such an alternative vision of just and democratic governance is inspired by the struggles and works of Mahatma Gandhi, B R Ambedkar, Rabindranath Tagore, Pandita Ramabai, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Paulo Frier and Wangaru Maathai, for freedom, justice and dignity. The ongoing political and social struggles for democratic accountability, citizens’ participation, social-economic-ecological justice and for the realisation of human rights point to the validity of a new praxis towards just and democratic governance. Such a perspective on Just and Democratic Governance (JD Governance) is informed by the theoretical insights and works of Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, Jurgen Habermas, Reinhold Neibuhr, Saul Alinsky, John Rawls, Amartya Sen, John Gaventa and James Rosneau. Such an approach not only challenges ‘good governance’ with its neo-liberal and economic globalisation framework, but also proposes a different ethical and political framework as well as practical strategies to challenge and change unequal and unjust power relationships. It will be useful to review various definitions of and approaches to governance. There are political as well as economic assumptions behind each definition. It will also be useful to understand the context in which the discourse on governance emerged. There are three sets of approaches to Governance -- Conformist, Reformist and Transformist. Some of the following definitions signify the policy and political subtext behind such approaches to governance. III. Whose ‘good’ governance is it anyway? The key challenge for development practitioners is the multiple perspectives and perceptions on governance. The dominant stream of ‘good’ governance discourse, promoted by proponents of neo-liberal economic globalisation, is often a means of effective macro management of economic resources; it is primarily apolitical. This techno-managerial approach fails to question the unequal and unjust macroeconomic framework that serves the interests of the powerful. Such an apolitical approach fails to seek accountability from global institutions or networks like the World Bank, UN, IMF, WTO, and G8. The good governance paradigm does not emphasise freedom, human rights and justice, and fails to consider the political-economy and dominant power relations that shape policy priorities and institutional formations. Neo-liberal economic globalisation often seeks to reshape governance systems and processes in such a way that policy and the political process in poor countries can be controlled by the dominant powers. a) Hegemonic conformism: The techno-managerial approach The World Bank defines governance as “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources”. The World Bank stresses three different aspects of governance: a) the form of political regime b) the process by which authority is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development and c) the capacity of governments to design, formulate, and implement policies and discharge functions. (World Bank 1994) OECD defines governance as “the use of political authority and exercise of control in a society in relation to the management of its resources for social and economic development. This definition further stresses the role of public authorities in establishing the environment in which economic operators function and in determining the distribution of benefits as well as the nature of relationships between the ruler and the ruled”. (OECD 1995) The report of the Commission on Global Governance mentions that “Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting and diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceived to be in their interest”.(Commission on Global Governance, 1995) These three definitions illustrate the conformist approach to governance where the stress is on “authority”, “management”, “resources”, “economic operators”, “interest” “development” and “country”. Almost all these approaches and definitions are proposed by organisations and processes that completely lack democratic accountability or political legitimacy. The techno-managerial approach to governance was meant for the poor countries of the Global South. In fact “good governance” has been a corollary to the Washington Consensus (the coercive consensus that market liberalisation, privatisation, and Western versions of democracy offer a global blueprint for economic growth and poverty reduction in the Global South) and became part and parcel of the economic and political conditionality of the multilateral and bilateral aid system. It is an irony that technical experts and mandarins of the World Bank, which is the most visible symbol of “democratic deficit” and “legitimacy deficit” in the world, became the arbitrators of “good” and “bad” governance. The neo-liberal pillars of structural adjustment, privatisation of public services, public sector management, the reduction of transaction costs and contract enforcement became the hallmark of so-called “good governance”. Of course such a perspective also sought to use decentralisation, transparency, “rule of law” and participation as strategic tools to build efficiency and effective management of financial resources, and to counter corruption. This “apolitical” conformist approach worked within the confines of unequal and unjust power relationships that perpetuate injustice, poverty and global hegemony across the world. The neo-liberal policy framework and the corollary of “good governance” fail to address the structural causes of corruption, poverty, patriarchy, conflict, arms race and militarisation. It has been more like an ‘exported’ software package of hegemonic power. The so-called “good governance” discourse has never questioned unilateral militarisation, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, skyrocketing budget deficits or spiraling military expenditure at the cost of public services. In fact, “good governance” was more like a package for the South and poorer countries and was not applicable to the powerful countries in the North. This is precisely the reason why many social justice and human rights activists feel bad about the good governance agenda. b) Liberal reformism: Neo-liberal apology While the World Bank, WTO, OECD and IMF have been the advocates of a ‘conformist’ good governance approach, the UNDP and some bilateral institutions like DFID and SIDA signified a ‘reformist’ approach to governance. While such an approach did not directly challenge neo-liberal economic globalisation or the dominance of a corporate-driven free market, they sought to “give a human face” to governance. In many ways the new reformist discourse of democratic governance, with the stress on state, civil society, market and citizens’ participation, emerged out of the post-Washington consensus that realised the failure of the Washington consensus almost everywhere. UNDP described governance as “the exercise of power or authority -- political, economic, administrative or otherwise -- to manage a country’s resources and affairs. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences” (UNDP 1997). UNDP later stressed “democratic governance” as a corollary to good governance. Kofi Annan qualified that good governance involves respect for human rights and rule of law; strengthening democracy; promoting transparency and capacity in public administration. Mahbub Ul Haq, key proponent of the human development approach at the UN, mentioned that “the concept of ‘good governance’ has failed to match the radicalism of human development” (Haq 1999). As an alternative to good governance, though very much in the reformist framework, his colleagues proposed “humane governance”, which includes the idea of political, economic and civic governance. Humane governance stresses the need for structures, processes and institutions that support a participatory, responsive and accountable polity (political governance), embedded in a competitive, non-discriminatory and yet equitable economy (economic governance) wherein people will have the space to participate and self-organise (civic governance). Richard Falk too proposed humane governance at the international level, stressing the renunciation of force in international relations, human rights, global common good, common heritage, accountability, rule of law and personal responsibility. The apologetic nature and the political underpinnings of the ‘liberal reformist’ perspective are well articulated by Richard Falk: “humane governance is not meant as a repudiation of economic and cultural globalisation or of market forces. These powerful elements in the existing global setting provide many beneficial opportunities for improving the material, social and cultural experience throughout the world. Beyond this, the tides of history have swept neo-liberal ideas into such a commanding position in this early period of globalisation that it would be disheartening to mount a frontal challenge, especially given the absence of viable alternatives....It recognises that within globalisation, there exists a potential for human governance” (Falk 2005). The entire spectrum of the liberal reformist approach tends to fall into the political trap of “there is no alternative” to economic globalisation and therefore fails to address even the symptoms of poverty and injustice. Such an apologetic political position is also due to the dependency of multilateral institutions like the UN and academic institutions in the North for funds and recognitions from the powerful states and the funding agencies that bankroll their existence. Though the rhetoric on good governance and civil society has significantly increased in the last ten years, most of the governments remain unaccountable, non-transparent and non-responsive. c) Progressive reformism: Citizen-centred approach. A progressive reformist approach seeks to challenge some of the assumptions and politics of neo-liberalism as well as bring to the centre of the discourse on governance the perspective of power, inclusive citizenship, gender, accountability, poverty and marginalisation, politics of participation and realisation of human rights. It brings the issue of power relations and politics to the core of the discourse on governance. In this sense it is critical as well as progressive in its normative framework. The key proponent of this approach is the Development Research Centre (DRC) on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability at the Institute of Development Studies. John Gaventa and the Participation Group at IDS have been champions of democratic participation. The knowledge-action-network initiative (with practitioners from the South and North) at the DRC provides a citizen-centred approach to governance based on democratic participation, a wider notion of public accountability and an action-oriented approach to human rights. Such an approach challenges the liberal approach in which citizenship is understood as a set of rights and responsibilities bestowed by the state. The critical reformist approach stresses how citizenship is claimed and rights are realised through the agency and action of the people themselves. This approach, variously termed “co-governance” or “participatory governance”, seeks to “supplement the role of citizens as voters or as watchdogs through more direct forms of involvement. These may be seen at many levels -- ranging from new forms of citizen engagement in national policymaking to new constitutional and legal mandates for citizens’ participation in local governance, often associated with the wave of democratic decentralisation that occurred in many developing countries including India, Brazil, Bangladesh and South Africa….While the co-governance approach emphasises the importance of inclusion through participation in the democratic process, a related strand of democratic participation focuses more on the nature and quality of deliberation that occurs when citizens do come together for discussions and debates in public spaces” ( Gaventa 2007). One significant aspect of this approach is that it brings in the poor and marginalised as major stakeholders in the discourse. As John Gaventa points out, “For poor and marginalised groups, the struggles of accountability gain traction when they involve access to basic resources and services that are necessary for survival and sustainable livelihood” (Gaventa 2006). The progressive and critical reformist approach has the potential to bring significant changes in the arena and institutions of governance. However, the citizens-centred approach often assumes a liberal-democratic-state and relatively “aware” citizen. While this approach stresses the “empowerment” of citizens and grassroots politics and micro-politics (in local self-government etc), it does not necessarily challenge “macro-politics” at the national and international level, the “global political economy” and some of the structural causes that impede the very idea of citizenship. Even in the broadest sense of the term ‘citizenship’, it fails to include millions of people who have been disenfranchised, exploited, excluded and marginalised across the world throughout history and due to the structural causes of marginalisation such as an extractive economic order, patriarchy, caste, race or ethnicity. In spite of the notion of inclusive citizenship, such an approach is still not sufficient to include the structurally and historically marginalised and disenfranchised, including children, migrants, dalits and indigenous peoples. So while we need to learn from such an approach and work towards refining it, we may have to go beyond the reformist to a transformative politics, ethics and governance. On one hand, a transformative approach builds on some of the ideas and actions in the progressive reformative paradigm and on the other it seeks to transcend the limitations of such an approach by bringing in new political analysis based on justice, equity and solidarity. d) Critical transformism: Just, people-centred and human rights-based approach The approach that we propose here can be termed Critical Transformism, because it seeks to critique the existing conditions and character of unjust power relations and micro and macro politics at the same time. It also seeks to transform existing systems through alternative perspectives and methods that have the potential to transform governance, society and politics. Such an approach seeks to challenge and change unjust systems through policy as well as political processes and at the same time expand the spaces and boundaries of social and political action. It is simultaneously practical and idealistic. It signifies an inside-outside approach – looking both within the system and at the same time beyond it in terms of politics, beliefs and immediate interests. It works with existing systems too, by constantly challenging and changing them to make them just, democratic and transparent. Though in its envisioning it is radical, in terms of its practice, methods and strategies, it is a systemic transformism, as distinct from radical tranformism (which seeks to replace one system with a whole new set of systems). Saul Alinsky (Rules of Radical), Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King followed some of the strategies of Critical Transformism. Gandhi’s dictum, “Resist where you must, cooperate where you can” in some ways reflects the approach of critical transformism. A just, people-centred and human rights-based approach seeks to transform unjust power relations through a political and ethical process. Its purpose is social transformation through the realisation of all human rights to all people, and political transformation to challenge unjust power relationships within and among institutions at the global, national and local level. What makes this approach distinctly different from the progressive reformist approach is the centrality of justice --- gender, social, economic, distributive and ecological -- in defining the politics of governance and that of institutional and policy priorities. It explicitly seeks to challenge unaccountable and unjust global institutions, transnational corporations and the monopoly of military and market power at the global level. At the same time it seeks to challenge various forms of hegemony and unjust power relations, lack of responsiveness, and accountability at the core of institutions of governance at the national level, both in the North and the South. While it focuses on people’s action and participation in governance, it does stress the obligatory role of the State to respect, protect and fulfill all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights. IV Just and democratic governance Governance is a site of unequal and often unjust power relations. Assertion and claiming of human rights by the people and by marginalised groups demands a transformation of power relationship within the arenas of governance. The rule of law and legal, political as well as institutional spaces for seeking public accountability are crucial prerequisites for the realisation of human rights, particularly socio-economic rights. From this perspective, we need to build a theory and practice of governance based on six interconnected and interdependent dimensions -- democratisation, human rights, justice, peoples’ participation, accountability and responsiveness. People are at the centre of such a perspective and the conceptualisation of just and democratic governance necessarily includes a sense of inclusive empowerment of all people (including the disenfranchised and excluded citizen) as well as working towards a transparent, effective and efficient institutional framework and the rule of law. Just and democratic governance is the process of exercising different forms of power (social, political, economic, legal and administrative) within various institutional arenas, from family to governments, from local to global, for the realisation of human rights, freedom and justice. From the perspective of justice and human rights, governance needs to be reconceptualised as an ethical and political process within various institutional arenas to seek accountability, to claim participation, to strengthen human dignity, to ensure justice and to expand the scope of freedoms -- freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of belief and freedom of association. Such a normative framework is based on the ethics of human dignity and equality of human persons and involves the challenging of unjust power relations in institutional and policy spaces at all levels. Just and democratic governance implies a perspective that seeks to transform power relations in a manner that would ensure spaces for people to monitor, influence and shape the content and process of public policies, public management and public goods and to help amplify the voices of the excluded and the participation of disenfranchised people. The core of such a perspective is the notion of social transformation through justice, inclusive empowerment, solidarity and transformative politics that ensure spaces for people and citizens to participate in institutional arenas and socio-political processes in their quest to recognise, realise and expand their sense of human rights, freedom as well as entitlements.  Such a perspective seeks to move from a representative or formal democracy to deliberate, substantive as well as participatory democracy. Such an approach is informed by notions of counter-discourse (Antonio Gramsci), communicative action (Habermas), distributive justice (John Rawls), human capability (Amartya Sen), conscientisation (Paul Frier), and grassroots democratisation and swaraj or self-rule (Mahatma Gandhi). The people’s planning process, participatory budgeting, citizens’ tribunals and social audits are some innovative methods used by the proponents of such an approach. a) Democratisation and democracy Democratisation is a political as well as ethical process based on human dignity as well as empowerment of people wherein they participate -- irrespective of gender, race, identity or age -- in those decisions and institutions that affect their lives. Such a process of democratisation is a means for people to realise freedom from fear and freedom from want. Democratisation involves the devolution of power in all institutional arenas. This also means democratisation of information, knowledge, economic resources and technology. Thus the ethics and practice of democratisation are relevant from all institutional settings, from the family to the state and global institutions. Democratisation as a political and ethical value depends on the equality of all human persons, irrespective of gender, caste, ethnicity or race, and their right to participate in social and political processes, their right to development and to live with dignity. While democratisation is more an ethical and political value, democracy is a political system of government. True democratic governance requires both the process of democratisation and the effectiveness of democracy as a political system based on the rule of law and accountable institutions. There are multiple perspectives and approaches to democracy, however. The present predicament of the discourse on democracy is well captured by John Gaventa: “Around the world, the forms and meaning of democratic participation are under contestation. In Iraq, Fallujah is bombed in the name of making the country ready for democracy; in Indonesia, Ukraine and United States, voters and observers are gripped in debates and protest against electoral democracy; in Cancun and other global fora, streets are occupied by those demanding more democracy in global processes; in small villages and neighbourhoods grassroots groups are claiming their places in local democratic spaces. Democracy is at once the language of military power, neoliberal market forces, political parties, donor agencies and NGOs. What is going on?” He further elaborates: “The way to deal with the crisis of democracy or democratic deficit, is to extend democracy itself -- that is to go beyond a traditional understanding of representative democracy, through creating and supporting more participatory spaces of citizens’ engagement, which in turn are built up on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship” (Gaventa 2007). Democracy works when citizens and the most marginalised people have the capability to ask questions, seek accountability from the state and participate in the process of governance. Democracy becomes meaningful when people can shape the state and the state, in turn, is capable of creating enabling social, political, economic and legal conditions wherein people can exercise their rights and realise freedom from fear and want. It is not merely elections or universal adult franchise that defines the process of democracy. While a constitutional framework and human rights guarantees can form the grammar of democracy, it is always people and the ethical quality of the political process that make democracy work. Democracy involves dignity, diversity, dissent, development, participation and accountability. Unless even the last person can celebrate her sense of dignity, exercise democratic dissent and be involved in the process of governance and development, democracy becomes empty rhetoric. Democracy dies where discrimination begins and the politics of exclusion takes root. Democracy can be defined as a “mode of decision-making about collectively binding rules and policies over which people exercise control, and the most democratic arrangement is that where all members of the collectivity enjoy effective equal rights to take part in such decision-making directly – one, that is to say, which realises to the greatest conceivable degree the principles of popular control and equality in its exercise (Betham 1992:40) A substantive democratic governance demands radicalising democracy, through the deepening and widening of the process of democratisation of the state and all institutions of governance. Social movements and civil society organisations, which act as counterbalances and counterweights to the dominant powers of state and non-state actors, have an important role in deepening democratic processes and expanding the spaces wherein poor and excluded people can participate as well as challenge the process of governance. The democratic and human rights-based approach is informed by actions, policies and programmes to make sure that the poor and excluded can challenge and change unequal and unjust power relationships inherent in the process of governance at various levels. The most visible and dominant discourse on democracy is derived from the western- liberal democratic legacy and the ideas that emerged during the Enlightenment. So there is a need to construct a pluralistic history of the process of democratisation in other cultures, collectivism and community living of indigenous communities and various ethical traditions such as Buddhism and Islam. Amartya Sen in his recent book, The Argumentative Indian, discussed the various trajectories and histories of ethical governance (particularly during the reign of Ashoka and later the Mughal Emperor Akbar). Some of the most inspiring experiments of grassroots democratisation and claiming democracy at the national level emerged during the struggle against colonialism and apartheid. In discussions about good governance, democratisation and rule of law, there is hardly any mention about the freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. The process of democratisation is also a function of culture and history at a given point in time. However, such histories and experiences are often ignored or marginalised by academic institutions and other proponents of the Euro- American model of liberal democracy. The political economy of knowledge production, dissemination and marketing is still controlled by privileged institutions and think-tanks in the Global North. Hence most of us are taught a privileged history and model of western-liberal democracy. The process of democratisation has both grassroots and global dimensions. The process of grassroots democratisation involves the democratisation of knowledge, technology and institutions in the way political, economic and institutional powers are devolved to such an extent that each and every citizen will have direct access to public services and democratic institutions. Such a process will necessarily involve the empowerment of women, minorities and disenfranchised people. Democratisation at the global level requires the free flow of information, knowledge and coordinated action and a shared sense of global solidarity based on the values of justice, equality and human rights. Such a sense of solidarity can be built in the public sphere through “communicative action”. Habermas explains the conditions for reaching a common understanding: “I speak of communicative action when the action orientations of the participating actors are not coordinated via egocentric calculations of success, but through acts of understanding. Participants are not primarily oriented towards their own success in communicative action: they pursue their individual goal under the condition that they can coordinate their action plans on the basis of shared definitions of the situation” (Habermas 1981). Such a shared sense of communicative action also implies argumentative rationality, wherein participants in a discourse are open to being persuaded by the better argument and the relations of power and hierarchies recede into the background. The goal of such communicative action is to reach a reasoned consensus. A sense of solidarity, a sense of identifying with fellow human beings with a shared bond of humanness and dignity, can make the process of democratisation deliberate, creative and participatory. b) Human rights The human rights-based approach to governance takes on the centrality of human rights as elucidated in the international system of human rights contained in treaties and declarations, in plans, policies and development processes. A rights-based approach to governance is a function of power relationships within and beyond institutions and based on the notion of accountability and answerability. The human rights-based approach to governance implies not only the political conditions but also the obligatory role of the state to respect, protect, and fulfill all human rights for all. Its political and ethical approach ensures that human rights are claimed and realised in an empowering way, with the strengthening of peoples’ capacity to negotiate with the powerful, to demand spaces for participation and to advance dignity and expand freedoms and choices to pursue a life of well-being and happiness. Such an approach necessarily involves the empowerment of the excluded as well as citizens to intervene in the process of governance to claim rights and demand accountability... A focused approach to governance also involves a set of clear tools, laws, systems and a clear knowledge base with a primary stress on reforming institutions of governance to make them more democratic, just, participatory, transparent and accountable. The human rights-based approach to governances implies that: - People are not passive beneficiaries or charity-seekers of the state or government. It is the state’s political and moral responsibility to guarantee all human rights to all human beings; particularly the right to live with dignity. Hence people have a right to demand that the state ensure equitable social change and distributive justice.
- Citizens are the owners and shapers of the state. Hence, the state should be transparent and accountable to citizens and defend human rights. People-centred advocacy mobilises people and civil society against societal violations of human rights as well as to influence the process of governance and public policies.
- It seeks to bridge the gap between micro-level activism and macro-level policy change. It stresses a bottom-up approach to social change rather than a top-down approach through macro-level policy change. It seeks to strengthen people's participation in the process of policymaking and implementation.
A rights-based and people-centred approach to governance also means the provision of legitimate spaces to question, to dissent peacefully, to develop alternatives by citizens and by civil society. The human rights-based approach necessarily involves affirmative action to ensure women’s rights as well as the rights of minorities and marginalised people. These are spaces for critical engagement – where civil society at times works to place checks on state power and at other time collaborates to place checks on private sector and international capital -- particularly where application of national laws is not enough for justice (so that governments, corporations, multilateral institutions and individuals representing institutions are held accountable for their actions). In the rights-based approach to governance, the emphasis is on participatory democracy and radicalising democracy – implying a movement of democracy from representative democracies to participatory democracies in the longer term on the one hand, and democratisation of institutions of power on the other -- at all levels, particularly democratising international governance -- a system of accessible, transparent and accountable governance which, for equitable national and global development, respects human rights and the rule of law. Just and democratic governance is driven by the practice of human rights, accountability and empowerment of citizens through participatory action and mobilization. While this is so, the rights-based approach to governance also rests on a democratic and independent media, with the freedom to access information. Freedom of information and expression without an independent, responsible, accessible and effective media is a freedom that cannot be exercised. c) Justice In the absence of justice, any process of governance and any government can monopolise power, discriminate against the poor and marginalised, and exclude large sections of people from the political and economic process. So justice, both as an ethical and political principle, should be one of the defining elements of the very process of governance in all institutional spheres. Such a conception of justice should encompass social justice (including gender justice, economic justice and ecological justice). While there are different ethical and political conceptions of justice, here we would stress the notion of justice as “fairness”. As John Rawls mentioned, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions……Laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability based on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. Being the first virtue of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising” (John Rawls, 1999). Justice as fairness is an illustration of a political as well as ethical conception of justice. In Rawls’ view, there are two principles of justice: I. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all, II. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. A just approach to governance necessarily implies the expansion of freedom, and respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights to all people. Further expanding the scope of the Rawlsian principles of justice, Amartya Sen pointed out that freedom, agency, capabilities and entitlements are enabling conditions for just and democratic governance. Entitlements are achieved by virtue of human rights, and capabilities enable people to choose and achieve different and necessary aspects of life’s physical needs as well as social aspects of well-being such as participation and self-worth (Sen 1999: 74-6). Poverty is the denial of justice (social, economic, gender and ecological) and human rights. The human dignity and self-worth of the poor and excluded are violated by unjust systems and practices of governance. In an unjust system of governance, the poor and excluded are treated less than human. Unjust forms of governance are often used to cheat, subjugate and exploit them. Justice and human rights together help us to form a moral basis, legal options and political space to challenge the dehumanisation as well as the causes and consequence of poverty and injustice.  d) Participation: Creating enabling political and social conditions for the participation of people in governance is very important. Participation fosters empowerment; and in a democracy participation is both a practice and a political philosophy. Participation is not merely a strategy to manufacture consent, manipulate consensus or extract cheap labour. Participation is a principle based on an inclusive moral choice; it means sharing power, legitimacy, freedom, responsibilities and accountability. Participation is both a principle and a means to include as many people as possible in the process of social change. Built on a deep respect for pluralism, tolerance and dissent, it also involves an ability to understand and appreciate differences. Transparency is a pre-requisite for true participation. In people-centred advocacy, participation is a crucial means to initiate, inform and inspire change in all arenas of advocacy. The political participation of citizens, particularly women, requires both socio-political mobilisation and knowledge capacity to monitor governance. Affirmative action is necessary to expand the spaces and role of women’s political participation and the participation of marginalised people and communities. This requires both knowledge-based activism and grassroots mobilisation. Participation is a sharing of power and the ability to influence the processes and outcomes of decision-making. Participation becomes meaningful when people have enabling spaces, mechanisms and the power to participate. Monitoring of governance is a means of participating in governance, policymaking and processes. e) Accountability Democratic accountability is both political and ethical. Accountability also has legal, social, economic and managerial aspects. Accountability is about answerability and enforceability. Answerability means the right to get information and a clear response from any institutions or authority and the obligation of such institutions to provide information and responses to stakeholders. Enforceability denotes the capacity to ensure that a redressal or action is taken to correct a wrong action or wrong policy. Empowerment of the people in terms of information, knowledge and mobilisation is a prerequisite for demanding any form of effective accountability. Accountability denotes the rights, responsibilities and duties that exist between people and various institutions that affect their lives. Accountability and legitimacy are two sides of the same coin. Lack of accountability will result in lack of political legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy will result in democratic deficit and the consequent abuse of power by decisionmakers and power-holders. From the perspective of democratic governance, people and citizens are the owners and shapers of the state. The sovereignty of the state is derived from the sovereignty of citizenship. Hence, all institutions of the state and governments are duty bound to be accountable to citizens. However, power is no longer the monopoly of the state or governments. Increasingly, big transnational corporations, media, public and private institutions, political parties, civil society formations and NGOs are wielding power, controlling resources and taking actions and decision that affect the lives, choices and livelihoods of people. There must therefore be a broader understanding of the politics and ethics of accountability. The big players in the markets like transnational corporations, big financial operators including banks and big media corporations are shaping the boundaries of the state and the lives and choices of the people. These unaccountable and powerful actors can become the biggest threat to just and democratic governance in their quest for profit, unbridled free markets, and accumulation of wealth and information. The notion of public accountability must ensure accountability of the state, governments and its institutions, corporate accountability, media accountability, accountability of political parties and of NGOs. All institutions and organisations that operate in the public sphere and marketplace need to be necessarily accountable to the people, citizens and all stakeholders. One of the preconditions for accountability is the right to information and the political space and institutional mechanisms to seek effective accountability from various governmental, corporate, public and non-governmental institutions. Transparency, accountability and legitimacy are interdependent conditions for any just and democratic form of governance. The exercise of any form of power or authority requires provisions for accountability to ensure that power or authority is not abused or used for the self-interest of the powerful few. In many ways, autonomy and accountability are linked. The more the autonomy, the more the need for accountability. It has been rightly pointed out that “Accountability refers to the fact that decision-makers do not enjoy unlimited authority or autonomy but have to justify their action vis-a-vis affected parties or stakeholders. These stakeholders must be able to evaluate the actions of decision-makers and to sanction them if their performance is poor, or even remove them from their positions of authority” (Held and Mathias-2005). There are many innovative forms of seeking accountability. The process of budget tracking, social audits, citizens’ tribunals, public hearings, people’s commissions, and the monitoring of institutions of governance and public policy by citizens groups have proved effective means of strengthening accountability. There are multiple approaches to accountability. Political accountability: Mechanisms of political accountability can be both horizontal and vertical. The state can have its own horizontal mechanisms like ombudsman, parliamentary audit committee, autonomous office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Citizens and civil society use elections, court cases, public interest litigation or political mobilisation. It is also important to advocate a new accountability framework for political parties (as they hold enormous power in a democratic polity), demanding disclosure of their sources of income, expenditure and provisions to regulate corporate donations for political parties. Social accountability focuses on people’s actions or civil society initiatives to hold the state and its institutions of government to account using social mobilisation, people-centred advocacy, investigative reports, media advocacy, public hearings, social audits, report cards and citizens’ tribunals. Social accountability also seeks to expand social and political spaces to seek accountability from corporate houses, media, civil society organisations and other powerful actors such as international financial institutions. Ethical accountability stresses accountability to democratic principles as well as the values of justice, equity and freedom. Ethical accountability has both personal and institutional dimensions and scope beyond the conventional territories of the nation-state. This also means that powerful countries are not only accountable to the people of their respective country but also accountable to the people of countries affected by the actions of such governments. In this way, the United States should be ethically and socially accountable to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who are at the receiving end of military aggressions and conflicts perpetuated for the sake of maintaining global military hegemony. It also focuses on seeking accountability of business corporations that seek to monopolise agriculture and food production and those in the business of making various kinds of medicines and drugs in biotechnology or the patenting of life forms. This has deep moral implications beyond one country or people. Hence ethical limits to market monopolies and efforts to regulate such corporations and make them accountable to this and coming generations can be part of ethical accountability. This also requires inter-generational accountability in terms of environment and climate change. It includes personal accountability to the values of sustainable consumption, reduced carbon emissions and accountability to peoples and generations who will be affected by our individual and societal actions, consumptions and behaviours. There is also a personal as well as institutional dimension to ethical accountability in terms of attitude, behaviour and language to ensure dignity and respect for women, ethnic, religious or racial minorities, and resist all forms of discrimination based on gender, race, language, caste or ethnicity. Managerial accountability focuses on financial accounting and reporting, and system accountability within state institutions, judged according to agreed performance criteria It includes regular auditing, appraisals and systems to ensure internal management integrity and effective and efficient use of financial and management resources As accountability is a function of power relations, it is important to identify and expand the spaces and processes of power in each context. This requires legal provisions, constitutional guarantees, social mobilisation, information and knowledge as well as the innovative use of media, technology, Internet as well as social and policy research. As power in the international arena and global space are increasingly appropriated by big transnational corporations, operators in the international finance market and International Finance Institutions (IFI), there is a real challenge to seek accountability and transparency from these organisations. Weighed voting at the World Bank and IMF means greater control and power by a few rich countries in the Global North. Though the World Bank and IMF claim that they are accountable to their stakeholders, are relatively more transparent in terms of information disclosure and have evaluation agencies, these organisations are far from being democratically accountable and often they become the handmaidens of rich countries and of rich and powerful corporations. The role of international and national NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) has increased significantly, both in terms of resources, networks, knowledge and discourse as well as the power to influence. These institutions and organisations function in the public sphere and most of them work on behalf of the poor and marginalised. Hence they are public institutions and depend largely on financial support from people or from taxpayer’s money through bilateral funding. Hence there is an urgent need for NGOs and CSOs to ensure effective, transparent and accountable management. Public accountability will be a prerequisite for the moral and political legitimacy of NGOs. Without moral and political legitimacy, NGOs will have less credibility or power to influence policymakers and decision-makers to be accountable, just or democratic. F) Responsiveness Effective accountability demands responsiveness from institutions and organisations that hold power. Responsiveness implies the capacity to deliver public policies and programmes in an effective, efficient and participatory manner. Responsiveness implies the ability of the system of governance to respond to the respective stakeholders. In the case of governments, citizens and people are the primary stake-holders. Responsiveness in such a case means the ability of the State and its institutions to respond to the needs of people delivering public services and goods in an effective and efficient manner and to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of all people. Responsiveness in that sense has a proactive and reactive aspect. In a proactive sense, responsiveness means the ability to deliver the given mandate of an institution in a timely, effective and efficient manner. This has both political and management implications. The failure to be proactively “responsive” can lead to the “legitimacy deficit” and eventual failure of institutions. A corollary of proactive response is the effective and transparent use of social and economic responses to deliver the key mandate or mission of the organisation. However, this can only be done when there are internal policies and legal frameworks to make sure that organisations manage their financial and other resources in a manner that would not undermine public interest or human rights. Effective public management of services or functions demands a responsive system, based on principles of effective, accountable management and respect for human rights and social justice. In a reactive sense, responsiveness implies the ability to respond to a demand, to a question or a need in an effective and efficient way. Reactive responsiveness is also closely linked to the social and ethical accountability of institutions. Responsiveness primarily focuses on effective public management in all arenas and institutions of governance in a responsive manner. V. Characteristics of just and democratic governance (JD governance) What are the enabling political and policy conditions wherein people, particularly the poor and excluded, can seek accountability, claim rights and participate in the process of governance? Given the diverse contexts of governance – both in forms of governance and level of evolution of social movements and civil society (countries which represent monarchies and military dictatorships, to countries where the experiments of democracies are being nurtured or where the track records of democracy are being questioned) -- the strategies and means to influence or participate in the process of governance need to be contextualised, and should be based on the analysis of the power in each multiple arena of governance 1) Agency and empowerment of people is a pre-requisite for JD Governance: It is local and global at the same time. The first and foremost characteristic of JD Governance is that it is claimed and shaped by people through social mobilisation, struggles for human rights and social justice and through the active agency of their experience and politics. In this case, people mean citizens, disenfranchised as well as those who may be living in a country – like migrants -- who may not be formal citizens of a particular country. It is local and at the same time global, in the sense that grassroots democratisation and peoples’ solidarity across cultures are two side of the same coin for seeking accountability from power holders from the local to global. While it may share a universal normative framework based on human rights, justice and democratisation, the manner in which JD Governance is shaped and evolved depends on the character and nature of the state, culture, language, history and political economy of a country or region. Hence it has a universal theoretical premise but a whole range of praxis, depending on the context and actors. 2) JD Governance advocates a comprehensive and political approach to democratic accountability The accountability framework of JD Governance is multi-sectoral and comprehensive in approach. It proposes that any institution, organisation or authority (government, non-governmental, market-driven or civil society-driven) operating in the public sphere and among or with large numbers of people will have to be accountable (politically, socially and ethically) to not only their direct stakeholders, but to people at large. Because any organisation or authority implies different forms or dimensions of power. Such power can be visible or invisible, direct or indirect, coercive or consensual, argumentative or persuasive, all-pervading or contextual. All such organisations or authorities in the public sphere or marketplace can derive multiple modes and sources of power from rules, laws, values, norms, culture, communications, language, customs, structures, people, knowledge-finance-market resources, technology, entertainment, location, outreach, networks and from moral premises, ideals, identity and interests. Any organisations or authority using any forms or source of power can affect a large number of people in terms of shaping their choices, values, beliefs and action. Hence all such organisations, public persons or authorities need to be necessarily accountable to the primary stakeholders as well as the people who are directly or indirectly affected by the exercise of any forms, modes and manner of power. Those who have relatively more power will have to be more accountable to the people at large. This means that accountability is sought, demanded and claimed from both state and non-state actors. This also brings business corporations, media -- both old and new -- CSOs, NGOs, private organisations or individuals operating in the public sphere, multilateral organisations, and religious groups into the sphere of accountability. This approach explicitly promotes, supports and demands accountability from the state and all of its institutions -- political parties; corporate accountability to consumers, communities, shareholders and citizens; CSO and NGO (including INGOs and grantmaking foundations, both private and public) accountability to partners and communities they work with or fund; and media accountability to readers and citizens. It also seeks social and ethical accountability from International Financial Institutions (WB, IMF, ADB etc), from WTO, from EU and other regional formations and from the UN system. Such an approach to accountability is two-way traffic. Any organisation or group that seeks accountability also needs to be accountable to the people. 3) Critical engagement: The JD Governance approach seeks to engage with and influence all actors in society, including institutions and authorities with whom you do not agree. Critical engagement means the ability to listen, challenge, change and transform. Critical engagement is not about endorsement, co-option, or partnership. It is about the responsibility to engage through direct discussions as well as through public arguments. So from the political perspective, one may have very serious reservations about the role and validity of WB, IMF or WTO. But from a governance and practical approach, it is not an option to engage with such powerful organisations and actors. “Resist when you must, cooperate where you can” is a practical as well as ethical strategy to deal with powerful organisations and governments. Such a critical engagement needs to be value-driven and at the same time aware about the trap of co-option.
4) People-centred advocacy: JD Governance seeks to change public policies and peoples’ attitude in an empowering and participatory manner. Hence people-centred advocacy is distinct from top-down, policy-centred and expert-driven advocacy. People-centred advocacy is a set of organised actions aimed at influencing public policies, societal attitudes and socio-political processes that enable and empower the marginalised to speak for themselves. Its purpose is social transformation through the realisation of human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural. People-centred advocacy is by the people, of the people and for the people. Hence, it is the spirit of democracy that drives the very idea of people-centred advocacy. People-centred advocacy is about mobilising the politics of the people to ensure that the politics of the state is accountable, transparent, ethical and democratic. It is a mode of social and political action. 5) JD Governance stresses the obligatory role of the state in respecting, protecting and fulfilling all human rights to all and the primacy of the state in providing public service and social security The obligatory role of the state in guaranteeing human rights to all and in providing public service to all is non-negotiable. Government cannot abdicate its responsibility and duty to ensure rights to food, water, healthcare, education, livelihood and shelter. Hence such an approach challenges the privatisation of basic services like water, health and education. The rule of law, and legitimate social and political spaces for people to participate in the process and implementation of public policies are two important prerequisites for JD Governance. The right to information, right to participation and right to accountable governance should form key building blocks to ensure democratisation, participation and accountability. Deliberate and planned efforts to address the causes and consequences of poverty, as well as adequate allocation of resources to address issues related to poverty and social and economic development of women and the excluded, are primary duties of the state and its institutions. 6) JD Governance challenges the unjust world order. One of the key causes of poverty, disease and deprivation is the unjust and unaccountable world order run by the self-interest of the political and economic elites in a few rich countries of the world. Unjust and unequal power relations, manipulated or controlled by a few rich countries and a unilateral superpower undermine human rights, subvert justice and are least accountable to more than a billion poor people across the world who are suffering because of the unjust policies and debt trap perpetuated by the rich countries in the North. Militarisation, the arms-race, small arms, unjust trade rules and conflicts are some of the major causes of poverty, injustice and human rights violations in this world. While these countries preach democracy and “good governance” they do not practice it in a substantive way (other than formal election wherein less and less people participate) and undermine democratisation and human rights in different parts of the world, including Iraq. The unjust trade regime, patenting rules and double standards supported and promoted by WTO harm the livelihoods and lives of billions of people across the world. The unprecedented power of the International Financial Institutions in shaping and controlling the governance process in poor countries, the increasing dominance of trade, aid and transnational corporations in shaping policy priorities and political processes in countries without any accountability to the people of those countries, raise serious questions about the ethics, politics and legitimacy of the new mandarins in the international policymaking process. The new war on terror and its consequences in terms of cultural alienation, political processes as well as human rights violations clearly expose the doublespeak of human rights, diversity and pluralism. Hence JD Governance stresses the mobilisation of the poor, disenfranchised and excluded as well as citizens towards ensuring global solidarity of people to expose the perpetuators of injustice and to force them to be accountable, democratic and just. 7) Peoples’ monitoring of institutions and processes of governance: Those who are in authority or power are never ready to devolve power. Hence even if there are legal provisions, constitutional guarantees and policy rhetoric about “good governance”, state as well as non-state actors hardly do anything to deliberately promote accountability, participation, responsiveness or human rights. Unless it is demanded, unless it is claimed by people, authority tends to accumulate power and create a culture of secrecy and control. Hence people’s constant vigil and monitoring of policies, governance at the grassroots level, national level and international level, is an important aspect of JD Governance. Such monitoring requires democratisation of knowledge, skills, information and technology. With the information and communication revolution, there is an increasing role and space for digital democracy, virtual mobilisation and Internet-based coordination of real action and solidarity on the ground. Hence, the JD approach seeks to build the capacity of the poor, excluded and citizens to monitor institutions of government, along with their policy promises and programme implementation. Exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality, demanding responsiveness from the government as well as other actors, the use of Internet and alternative media for public education and mobilization, are all part of such an approach. This also involves developing innovative strategies to track budgets and resources, to monitor the market and transnational corporations, and to monitor media and other actors. People’s monitoring of such policies also require enabling conditions such as right to information, conscientisation and strategic support to make them meaningful and fruitful. However, unless such monitoring is done at the grassroots level as well as at the global level, with the political participation of women and the excluded, it will fail to take the perspective of the people at the receiving end of unequal and unjust power relationships. There is an increasing sense of democratic deficit and lack of political legitimacy of governments in both rich and poor countries. Hence, it is important to have people’s and citizens’ action to promote enabling legislations to ensure the right to information, right to citizens’ participation, women’s political participation, local self-government and budget accountability. In the absence of effective public accountability and transparency, corruption spreads like a cancer in the whole arena of governance and public management, sapping resources, perpetuating poverty, injustice and conflict. 8) Women’s political participation and leadership in governance: All over the world women have less power in all institutional arenas. The culture of patriarchy and the reproduction of unequal and unjust power relationships throughout history became the major impediments for women’s rights and political participation. Active participation of women in all spheres of governance is an important step towards a just world. While there is an increasing recognition of women at the level of local governance, women have denied access or space to participate at the national level of policymaking or implementation. Even at the level of local self-governance, there has not been enough investment or resources to strengthen the capacity of women to participate in the political process. Hence, one of the priority areas for action and advocacy is to expand the space and scope for the political participation of women and other excluded people. This requires more space for affirmative action and affirmative politics in almost all countries of the world. 9) Making governance work at the grassroots: Local self-governance: Institutions of local self government and the process of local self-governance can become very important means of effective grassroots and community-level democratisation, participation and accountability. Decentralisation of governments and, devolution of power, administration and financial resources help to strengthen the delivery, effectiveness and accountability of common goods and services. Innovative practices like Participatory Planning (eg Kerala in India) and Participatory Budgeting (eg Porto Algre in Brazil) help to make governance work at the grassroots level through substantive participation of citizens and public accountability at the community level. While many governments across the world tend to move towards decentralisation and local governments, there is indeed a space and opportunity for citizens to expand spaces for participation, accountability and responsive governance. However, in the absence of effective devolution of power or finance, local self-government and decentralisation become empty rhetoric to serve the interests of central governments and powerful bureaucracies. VI. Democratising global governance There are many supranational and international institutions that wield more power than the governments in developing world or least developed countries. These institutions, particularly the IMF, Word Bank, WTO and various regional banks (like ADB) tend to seek accountability from national governments for the economic and political conditions imposed on them. The problem is that when unaccountable and undemocratic organisations like the World Bank or IMF seek accountability and ‘promote’ democracy, there is an unequal and unjust form of power relations that thrives on the patriarchal relationship between rich and poor countries or the old colonial masters or new imperialist and their erstwhile colonies of poor countries. Hence, democratisation of global governance institutions and seeking accountability and transparency is a part of our struggle to fight the unjust institutional systems that perpetuate poverty. Though many such organisations, claiming a mandate of global governance, have taken incremental steps to increase access to information, they have not done anything to reform or transform their governance to ensure social accountability to the communities and people affected by their action... The increasing mobilisations across the world against war, unjust trade and neo-liberal globalisation are s symptom of the emerging global solidarity and new transnational civil society formation to work towards democratisation of global institutions and the world order. As a result there is an increasing recognition about the role of trade, aid and debt either in eradicating poverty or perpetuating poverty. The issues of trade reforms, landmines, climate change, debt, aid accountability, small arms, food rights, HIV/AIDS, women’s rights and corporate accountability were brought to the centrestage of global policy discourse to a large extent by the transnational citizen’s movement and civil society formations. The emerging global solidarity among social movements, progressive civil society organisations, trade unions and INGOs have forced the retreat of the Washington consensus to some extent and also forced many organisations to at least disclose more information (even if it is in the digital world). Such global mobilisation and solidarity is also a symptom of a digital democratisation and the use of technology to connect, participate, challenge and change. International policy frameworks like the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment was contested and fought in cyberspace. The emerging digital democracy and coordinated actions across the world in the context of campaigns like the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) and similar campaign for trade justice, stopping violence against women, and controlling small arms will have far-reaching implications in shaping and building new forms of people’s solidarity though the cyber world and beyond it. The emergence of the World Social Forum as an open space for social movements, citizen-activists as well as civil society formations is an important milestone in the history of an emerging global solidarity. World Social Forum’s assertion that another world is possible is about challenging as well as transforming this world in a more just and democratic manner. There is indeed a need for a paradigm shift of public policymaking and implementation. The present neo-liberal and neo-conservative policymaking process is inherently divisive and will perpetuate violence, poverty and agony all over the world. So we need to think, act and move towards a more humanist, ethical, human rights-based and democratically accountable policy paradigm for heralding another world: a world of human rights for all where every person can live with dignity, where no one will go to bed hungry, a world without wars, a world of freedom from want and freedom from fear, a world that is sustainable…A world where every human person can realise her or his creative potential, a world of ethical consumption, ethical markets and democratic states…A JUST world. We need to keep alive our capability to dream, capability to aspire, capability to change and transform this world. We need to create a new politics and new poetry towards such a world. But all these can only be done when people are empowered to ask questions, seek accountability and claim rights from all those institutions that seek to monopolise and control power at the social, political and economic arena; from local to global. We need to recognise that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. A new wave of grassroots and global democratisation is waiting to happen. A new policy paradigm and institutional framework based on justice, equity, sustainable environment, freedom and human rights will have to emerge. Philosophers can keep on interpreting the world, our task is to change it. As Martin Luther King said: “We have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure … Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” References - Beetham, D (1992) ‘Liberal Democracy and Limits of Democratisation, Political Issues, Special Issue, Vol 40.
- Falk, Richard (2005): ‘Humane Governance for the World: Reviving the Quest, Global Governance Reader’. Ed Rorden Wilkinson, Rutledge, London and New York
- Gaventa, John (2007). Foreword to ‘Space for Change’ Edited by Andrea Cornwall ad Vera Schattan Coelho.
- Habermas, Jurgen (1981), ‘Theory of Communicative Action’
- Hunter F (1953): ‘Community Power Structures: A Study of Decision Makers’, Chapel Hill, and University of North Carolina Press.
- Rawls, John (1999). ‘A Theory of Justice’, Harvard University Press, MA, Cambridge
- Sen, Amartya (1999): ‘Development as Freedom’, Oxford; Oxford University Press
- Wrights, Mills.C (1956) : ‘The Power Elites’, New York, Oxford University Press, republished in 2000
- Commission on Global Governance (1995), Oxford University Press, New York.p.2
- OECD (1995): ‘Participatory Development and Good Governance’, Paris. P 14.
- Mahbub ul Haq Human Development Centre (1999), ‘Human Development in South Asia: The Crisis of Governance’, Oxford University Press, Oxford. P 28.
- World Bank (1994), ‘Governance, The World Bank’s Experience’, Washington DC. P xiv
- UNDP (1997): ‘Governance for Sustainable Human Development’, New York. Pp- 2-3
InfoChange News & Features, July 2007
|
