Why good governance, may not be always good governance

Why good governance, may not be always good governance

As Singapore prepares to celebrate 50 years of “good governance” – it may be a good idea to just spend sometime asking ourselves whether Kishore is justified to adopt a “we have arrived” tone?

But before diving there – let’s just consider what is good governance? And is it really the magic bullet that can slay the bad and the seed the good in one go? Well, first of all you need to realize that good governance - has absolutely nothing to do with it’s dictionary meaning – it’s abit like dial a girl - it’s 10% effort and 90% imagination - so it’s a bag term that really defies pin point definition – I don’t doubt some people can rip out a bullet point list and tell you what it is – the problem is like all abstractions, it inspires the same problem with what’s often striven so hard for – it’s fails to pin down the nub.

If had to plumb for a definition of good governance it would be simply this – the need to establish accountability within government systems to reduce the abuse of power. Through - rule of law and not rule by law and.

The distinction is subtle and fine - so work in through your head, take your time, as the rest of this essay will not make sense - if it’s not crystal.

When the idea of good governance is applied judiciously - it works! For example if you look at the US system although it is radically divided over issues of how best to pursue the best end or means - none of them, no matter how fractious threatens the stability and legitimacy of the system - Americans may vilify one another as bigoted or morally depraved, but they know they will not be put up against a wall if their party loses a election or run out of the country on trumped up charges. Result: good governance shows that the cohesion of American society is stronger than its divisions - good wins over bad.

The problem with good governance as an idea, concept or even school of thought is when its given perfunctory treatment - that’s to say form takes precedence over function – where people aren’t so sure, if they cross the line, maybe they will get kicked out or bankrupted or have some part of their privacy revealed to their greater detriment – when that happens; good governance as an idea becomes not only a means to express contempt for the rule of law; but it also degenerates into a farce.

Why’s that?

Simple - good governance can really cut both ways – and this dichotomy bears out only too clearly when we peruse through the history of good governance; don’t be surprised, if instead of seeding the good, it even kills it dead and instead rubber stamps a whole lot of undesirable practices.

Don’t believe me, then consider this: why did the US invade Iraq? Good governance. Why is Najib Abdullah clamping down on the opposition just up North? Good governance. Why did China block Youtube? Good governance. Why did the Thai elites kick out Thaksin and declare martial law? Yes, you guessed it.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25229.1