Good Governance

Introduction:
Good governance has emerged at the forefront of the development agenda in Pakistan. Citizens, domestic enterprises and foreign investors see governance as the key ingredient for sustainable development and a sound investment climate. Accordingly, good governance is recognized as one of the most critical factors for successful achievement of the strategic thrust, policies, programmers and targets enshrined in the MTDF. This is the age of living transparently. A visible change has been brought in the culture of all financial players Finance Ministry and Departments are more open and transparent, as are all Commercial Banks under vigilant supervision of the State Bank. Pakistans favorable economic conditions have been achieved as a result of reforms initiated during the last five years. Reforms have opened up opportunities for foreign investors. Reforms lie at the core of our economic turnaround. This process needs to be continued for a longer time. The focus of first generation reforms was to achieve macroeconomic stability, to rescue the declining and volatile economy. The achieve high growth and sustain it, the second generation reforms focus on building the institutional and governance capacity and improving the competitive environment in the country. Civil services, police, judiciary and devolution will be the key areas of governance that would occupy our reform effort. In the face of emerging WTO challenges, the focus should be on reducing the cost of doing business in Pakistan, especially in areas such as government regulations, tax distortions, and efficiency of public utilities and removal of infrastructural bottlenecks. The challenge now is to sustain reforms in order to accelerate growth and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The concept of governance relates to the quality of the relationship between government and the citizens whom it exists to serve and protect. Governance may be defined as the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a countrys economic and social resources for development. This concept is concerned directly with the management of development process, involving both the public and private sector. Good governance

relates to a pluralistic and holistic view where responsibility is jointly shared by players in public sector, the corporate private sector, and civil society by addressing the issues of accountability, transparency, participation, openness, rule of law and predictability. It is also a key link between growth and reduction of poverty and inequality. As growth generates income, good governance trickles this effect down to the masses, particularly the poor. The State is responsible for creating a conducive political, legal and economic environment for building individual capabilities and encouraging private initiative. The market on the other hand, is expected to create opportunities for people. Civil society facilitates mobilization of public opinion and peoples participation in economic, social and political activities. Economic governance, or sound development management, is at the core of sustainable development. The four key components of governance are accountability, transparency, predictability, and participation; these are universally applicable regardless of the economic orientation, strategic priorities, or policy choices of the government. Issues of public sector efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability are important for long-term growth. Public sector management requires action to make markets competitive. Similarly issues of restricting the reach of state intervention and improving the delivery of basic services are high on the countrys development agenda. A policy, legal and regulatory environment, which secures property rights and enforces contracts, is supportive of economic growth and poverty reduction. People being at the heart of development need to have access to the institutions that promote it. Systemic corruption extracts a heavy price by reducing investment and increasing capital costs. During the MTDF, governance activities will be mainstreamed in the development process. First, the process of decentralization and devolution will be strengthened to enhance the delivery of critical municipal services. Second, participatory approaches and governance considerations will be strengthened in the design and implementation of policies, programmes and projects, with capacity building of agencies involved. Third, the systemic problems that undermine the efficiency of legal, judicial and law enforcement institutions will be addressed. Fourth, corporate governance and public-private interface issues will be addressed to protect identified public interests while minimizing private transaction costs. Fifth, several areas of public sector management will be addressed, including (a) streamlining revenue administration; (b) strengthening public financial administration; (c) streamlining E-Governance; (d) public sector capacity

building and civil service reforms, covering professionalization of civil services and qualitative improvements through continuous training and skill up-gradation and (e) enhancing the quality and coverage of data and statistics. Finally, implementation effectiveness of MTDF, covering both the public and private sectors, will be given priority attention at the thematic, sectoral, policy coordination and programme level, for key development outcomes with a particular focus on monitoring and evaluation of targets and outcomes of PSDP.

Definition:
The effective and responsible management of an organization, a country he process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented.

Importance of Governance:
Good governance indicates a more constructive relationship between the people and the government, but there remains a question of whether better relationship brings concrete benefits. Does better governance improve the quality of life or lead to greater opportunities for people? This is an important question, and we have some evidence to answer that it does. New research shows that government institutions that are accountable, effective and respected produce higher standards of living (shown in income per capita) and improved social outcomes, such as low rates of infant mortality and high rates of literacy. In addition, poor governance has led to political instability and frequent regime changes in many countries.

History of Governance in Pakistan:

Pakistan inherited a well functioning structure of judiciary, civil service and military but a relatively weak legislative oversight at the time of its independence. Over time the domination of civil service and military in the affairs of the state disrupted the evolution of the democratic political process and further weakened the legislative organ of the state. The judicial arm,

with few exceptions, plodded along sanctifying the dominant role of the military and the civil service. The institutions inherited from the British rule, were quite relevant for the requirements of the rulers of those times. Following independence, those requirements expanded in scope and content while the level of expectations from the public and their elected representatives was heightened. But these inherited institutions failed to adapt themselves to meet the new challenges of development and social changes and respond to the heightened expectations and aspirations of a free people. The business as usual mode of functioning, the approach and attitudes of the incumbents holding top and middle level positions in the bureaucracy and manning these institutions did not endear them to the political leaders or to the general public. Several Commissions and Committees were formed in the first twenty five years after independence for reform of the administrative structure and civil services. Some changes were introduced during Ayub Khans regime in the 1960s to improve the efficiency of the Secretariats but the tendencies for centralized controls and personalized decision making got worse in this period. The reluctance to grant provincial autonomy to East Pakistan the most populous province of the country - so remote physically from the hub of decision making i.e. Islamabad led to serious political backlash and eventual break up of the country into two independent nations. Pakistan continued to suffer from what has been termed as Confused federalism in which weak local and provincial bodies are unable to match the ability of the Central Government to mobilize resources and provide services. Whether it is health or education or highways or agriculture the Federal Government has much larger programmes under implementation than the Provincial or local governments. Although the money is spent in the provinces or districts the inability to identify, design, approve and implement these projects caused resentment among the provincial governments. In 1973, a populist government headed by Mr. Z.A. Bhutto took the first step to break the steel frame of the Civil Services by taking away the constitutional guarantee of the security of the job. He also demolished the exclusive and privileged role of the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) within the overall structure of the public service.

The next twenty five years witnessed a significant decline in the quality of new recruits to the Civil Services as the implicit trade off between the job security and low compensation ceased to operate and the expanding private sector including multinational corporations offered more attractive career opportunities. The erosion of real wages in public sector over time also led to low morale, demotivation, inefficiency and resort to corrupt practices among the civil servants at all levels. The abuse of discretionary powers, the bureaucratic obstruction and the delaying tactics adopted by the government functionaries are all part of the maneuvering to extract rents for supplementing their pay. In real terms the compensation paid to higher civil servants is only one half of the 1994 package. The low wages mean that the civil service no longer attracts the most talented young men and women. Some of the incumbents of the Civil Services, in their instinct of self preservation, fell prey to the machinations of the political regimes in power and many of them got identified with one political party or the other. They also benefited from the culture of patronage practiced by the politicians. During the 1990s the replacement of one political party by the other in the corridors of power was followed by changes in top bureaucracy. This growing tendency of informal political affiliation for tenaciously holding on to key jobs was also responsible for the end of an impartial, neutral and competent civil service responsive to the needs of the common man. Loyalty to the Ministers, the Chief Ministers and Prime Minister took ascendancy over the accountability to the general public. The frequent takeovers by the military regimes and the consequential screening of hundreds of civil servants led to subservience of the civil service to the military rulers, erosion of the authority of the traditional institutions of governance and loss of initiative by the higher bureaucracy. The 2001 devolution plan put another major blow to the Civil Service of Pakistan as the posts of Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners (DC) and Assistant Commissioners (AC) were abolished and the reins of District Administration were transferred to the elected Nazims. To ordinary citizens, the government was most tangibly embodied in these civil servants. It was the DC and AC that they approached on a daily basis. The substitution of the civil servant by an elected head of the administration is quite a new phenomenon and will take some time to sink in. While this transition takes place the checks and balances implicit in the previous administrative set up have become redundant. The police as a coercive force have therefore assumed greater clout. The opportunities of collusion between the Nazim and the police have multiplied and in many instances alienated the common

citizens and diluted the impartiality of the administration at grass roots levels. The sanctity of private property rights has been threatened in several cases when the Nazims have given orders to make unauthorized changes in the land records in the rural areas in collusion with the government functionaries to benefit themselves and their cronies. The District Administration is yet to grow as autonomous institution in face of a hostile environment of centralizing administration, and inequitable resource distribution.

Crisis of Good Governance in Pakistan:

Political causes Parliament, a toothless tiger Political instability due to constant military interference Issue of provincialism on revenue, resources and demand of provincial autonomy Administrative causes Bureaucratic hold on all institutions Political interference on bureaucracy Corruption, mother of all evils Absence of culture of accountability Mismanagement of resources Pakistan, a soft state because of inability of implementation of policies due to lack of consensus Economic causes Fragile economy FDI shrinking on account of terrorism and political instability Crisis of energy, food, water Corruption from top to bottom creating burden on the government exchequer Social causes Poverty 40 per cent population living below the poverty line (UN reports) Over population -16.6 corer ( Economic Survey of Pakistan 2009) Illiteracy leading to socio-economic backwardness

Characteristics of good governance:

1. Participation All men and women, inclusive of the physically challenged, should have a voice in decision- making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capabilities to participate constructively. Participation is a process whereby policy- making, prioritizing issues, accessibility to public goods and services and also allocating resources is influenced by key stakeholders. It varies from one context to another and subject to different projects and visions. Participatory processes in a poverty reduction strategy promote information exchange and transparency in decision-making processes. The World Bank notes that this, in turn, will improve and, as a result, increase the overall governance and economic efficiency of development activities. Generally, public involvement includes three elements or pillars: Public access to information; Public participation in decision-making processes; Public access to judicial and administrative redress often termed access to justice.

Access to information can be passive or active. Passive access is where the public will get information upon request to government institutions. Active access is whereby the government is obliged to give and disseminate information. Access to justice is whereby the procedural rights of the public to information are respected and guaranteed. This is because for rights to be effective there should be a corresponding remedy. The above pillars are also known in environmental law parlance as third generation human rights or environmental rights. They are also part of the basic tenets of good governance. The rationale for public involvement can be discussed from various dimensions. From a human rights dimension, people have the right to know, to be informed and participate in decisions that affect them as well as seeking redress. From a legal, ethical and moral dimension, citizens and government officials are obliged to ensure good governance. It has been argued that government processes are improved through public involvement. 2. Rule of Law Laws, regulations and codes of conduct should be fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on human rights. One of the effective ways of tackling weak governance is to look at the disconnection between institutions within the broader governance environment including the scope of operation of the society in general. The availability of information is critical to good governance. Access to information and the promotion of procedural rights provide an enabling framework where accountability and improved delivery could enhance institutional changes. Information is critical for the leaders and their constituents to be informed of their problems as well as the solutions. Likewise, it is important to review previous institutional constraints in order to map the future with viable options because a poor governance system serves private interests at the expense of the poor and they suffer in a multiplicity of ways. A correct diagnosis of poor governance is important in that it determines practical strategies that are sustainable and effective in reducing poverty. 3. Transparency Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them. It promotes

openness of government action, decision-making processes, and consultative processes among public sector and all stakeholders. These processes are subject to scrutiny by other government institutions, civil society and external institutions. Lack of transparency, weak accountability, lack of responsiveness and inefficiency also compromise good governance. In a corrupt government, public resources are diverted from meeting the needs of the poor and benefits do not reach the intended beneficiaries. Human security is compromised by corruption. This is because corruption is both a cause and effect of bad governance. The poor are usually disproportionately affected by poor governance because health, education and police services are inaccessible. Their income is usually eroded through payment of bribes. Corruption can be classified into two broad categories, state capture and administrative corruption. State capture takes place when a framework of laws and rules has been distorted. This form of corruption is characterized by enactment of laws, policies and regulations that are influenced through illegal and non-transparent ways, as well as serving private interests. Administrative corruption is about distortion of the implementation of these laws and policies. It refers to the intentional imposition of distortion in the prescribed implementation of existing laws, rules and regulations to provide advantage to either state or nonstate actors as a result of illegal transfer or concentration of private gains to public officials. 4. Responsiveness
Institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.

5. Consensus Orientation Good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interest of the group and, where possible, on policies and procedures. Underlying this characteristic is the theory of consensus and consensus decision making. Consensus Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community. The other is as a theory and practice of getting such agreements.

The process of achieving consensus involves serious consideration of every group members or stakeholders considered opinion. Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together until a convergent decision is developed. Consensus decision-making Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus decisionmaking is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. This method also increases the likelihood of unforeseen or creative solutions by juxtaposing dissimilar ideas. Consensus decision-making involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument. This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy. 6. Equity A societys well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. 7. Effectiveness and efficiency Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while making the best use of resources. This characteristic promotes efficient public delivery systems and quality public outputs. It deals with the amount of public respect the civil service has. One aspect of poor service delivery is corruption. One of the ways of fighting corruption is through competitive salaries and motivating staff through incentives. There is also a need to introduce legislation governing civil service and a code of conduct. This legislation will define the appointments and promotions of civil servants through merit based processes as well as the organizational structure. 8. Accountability

Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organizations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. This accountability differs depending on the organization and whether the decision is internal or external to an organization. Central to the principle of accountability is information sharing and transparency which should be promoted by governance structures. Hence, accountability is hard to achieve especially in the absence of access to information. Public accountability is founded on two pillars. The first pillar is related to accountability by the executive and the second pillar is based on institutional change. Accountability can be classified in four categories. These are public, financial, horizontal and vertical. Horizontal accountability is the relationship between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. Vertical accountability is whereby one actor reports to another subject to the interpretation of constitutional provisions. Informal checks on these relationships are reinforced by the civil society and the donor community.

CONCLUSION
From the above discussion it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality. Very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality.