John Samuel
“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
Governance is an overarching concept with political and institutional dimensions. It has a clear connection with the way the state and its various institutions negotiate and mediate with people, market and civil society; through laws, policies, regulation and finance. However, over a period of the last fifteen years , the concept of governance has gone beyond the conventional arena of the nation-state or that of the government. The process of governance is increasingly influenced by market forces as well as civil-society process. There are multiple perspectives and approaches to governance.
I. Why Governance Matters?
Governance signifies the multiple forms of power in various institutional arenas (both governmental and non-governmental) wherein public policies are formulated, legitimized and implemented. Governance implies the institutional as well as political means to participate in public policy and social process, to claim human rights and to ensure inclusive citizenship. It also provides institutional and legal interface through which citizens mediate and interact with the state and seek accountability. The process of governance is deeply political. And it is influenced by the macro as well as micro power dynamics within the social, political and economic spheres. Power relations within a society or institutional spaces are negotiated through history, culture, identity formations and economy. Often unequal and unjust power relations, such as patriarchy and exclusion, are shaped and sustained by the process as well as institutions of governance.
More often, it is the “power elite” within a given country or institution that control the process of governance. As it has been pointed out “the power of ordinary men are circumscribed by the everyday worlds in which they live, yet in these round of job, family and neighborhood, they often seem driven by forces they can neither understand nor govern….the Men of real power controlled the expenditures for both public and private agencies devoted to health and welfare programme in the communities” (Hunter 1953).
In an influential study on American Power Elite, C Wright Mills described the ‘men’ who control governance:
“As the means of information and power are centralized, some men come to occupy position in society-…they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. Whether they do or do not make such decisions is less important than the fact they do occupy such pivotal positions: their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself is an act that is often of greater consequences than the decision they do make. For they are in the command of major hierarchies and organizations of modern society. They run big corporations. They run the machinery of the state and claim its prerogatives. They direct the military establishment. They occupy the strategic command posts of social structure, in which they are now centred the effective means of the power and the wealth and the celebrity which they enjoy “(Mills 1956).
Such power elites have now become global forces, controlling big transnational corporations, media business, academic institutions and global institutions. The very process and institutions of governance become a means for subjugation, subversion and delusion when the power elites control the very character and content of the discourse on “good governance” or “global governance”.
Governance becomes accountable only when citizens and people are empowered to ask questions, seek justice and claim participation. Accountable governance and empowerment of people are two prerequisite to claim human rights and to fight poverty and injustice.
II. Need for an Alternative Vision
Hence, there is a 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 such a vision, the very content and character of Governance can be an arena of power manipulations, policy rhetoric and empty promises to sustain a hegemonic order.
. This paper is an effort towards articulating such a normative framework that stresses Governance as deeply ethical as well as political process, based on justice, freedom, solidarity and human dignity. Such an approach not only challenges the dominant “Good Governance” discourse, but also proposes a different ethical- and political framework and practical strategies to challenge and change unequal and unjust power relationships that perpetuate injustice and poverty.
III. Multiple Approaches to Governance Discourse
It will be useful to review various definitions of and approaches to governance. There are political as well economic assumptions behind each of such definition. It is important to understand the political and economic context in which the discourse on governance emerged. There are three broad sets of approach to Governance- Conformist, Reformist and Transformist.
a) Hegemonic Conformism: techno-managerial approach
World Bank defines Governance “as the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources”. World Banks stresses three different aspect 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 many ways individuals and institutions, public and private manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting and diverse interest may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal and 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)
People are absent in all the above definitions. These three definitions illustrate the conformist approach to governance where the stress is on “authority”, “management”, “resources”, “and economic operators”, “interest” “development” and “country”. The techno-managerial approach to governance was meant for the poor countries in the global south. In fact “good governance” has been a corollary to the “Washington Consensus( the coercive consensus that promoted market liberalization, privatization, and ‘ready-made” versions of democracy) and became a part and parcel of economic and political conditionality of multilateral aid system. It is an irony that that technical experts and mandarin of the World Bank or IMF, a visible symbol of “legitimacy deficit, became arbitrators of the “good “ and “bad” governance.
This “apolitical” conformist approach worked within the confines of unequal and unjust power relationship that perpetuate the global hegemony across the world. Such an approach failed to address the structural causes of corruption, poverty, patriarchy, conflicts, arms race and militarization
Richard Falk too proposed a Humane Governance at the international level, stressing the renunciation of force in the international relations, human rights, global common good, common heritage, accountability, rule of law and personal responsibility. However, the “human governance” proposed by Richard Falk also tends to subscribe to hegemonic conformist approach : “ the focus of humane governance is not meant as repudiation of economic and cultural globalization 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 globalization that it would be disheartening to mount a frontal challenge, especially given the absence of viable alternative. ..It recognizes that within globalization, there exists a potential for human governance”( Falk 2005). Such an approach tends to fall in to the political trap of “there is no alternative” to economic globalization syndrome and fail to address even the symptoms of poverty and injustice.
The conformist paradigm fails to consider political-economy and dominant power relations that shape the policy priorities and institutional formations.
Though the rhetoric on ‘good governance’ significantly increased in the last ten years, most of the governments remain unaccountable, non-transparent and non-responsive. This is precisely the reason that many of the social justice and human rights advocates feel “bad” about the “good” Governance agenda.
b) Reformist Approach: Democratic Governance
The reformist discourse of democratic governance, with the stress on the state, civil society, market, and participation, emerged along with the advocacy for the human development and the human rights based approach to development.
UNDP described governance as ‘the exercise of power or authority-political, economic, administrative or otherwise- to manage country’s resources and affairs. It comprises the mechanisms, process 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 on adopted a more balanced democratic approach to governance. Kofi Annan qualified ‘ governance” as ensuring respect for human rights and rule of law; strengthening democracy; promoting transparency and capacity in public administration”
Mahabub ul Haq, the key proponent of the Human Development Approach mentioned that “the concept of ‘good governance’ has failed to match the radicalism of human development”(Haq 1999). As an alternative approach he proposed the “Humane Governance”, including 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 competitive, non-discriminatory and yet equitable economy (Economic Governance) wherein people will have the space to participate and self organize (civic governance).
c) Citizen-centerd approach.
A progressive reformist approach tends to stress the perspective of power, inclusive citizenship, gender, accountability, poor and marginalized, politics of participation and realization of human rights in to the centre of the discourse on governance. In that sense it brings back the issue of power relations and politics in to the core of the discourse on governance. 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-centered approach to governance based on democratic participation, a wider notion of public accountability and an actor-oriented approach to human rights.
Such an approach stresses how citizenship is claimed and rights are realized through the agency and action of the people themselves. This approach variously termed as “co-governance” or “Participatory Governance” seeks to ‘supplement the role of citizens as voters or as watch dog through more direct forms of involvement. These may be seen at many levels- ranging from new forms of citizen engagement in national policy making to new constitutional and legal mandates for citizens participation in local governance, often associated with the wave of democratic decentralization that occurred in many developing countries including India, Brazil, Bangladesh and South Africa. While Co-governance approach emphasizes the importance of inclusion through participation in 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 of the very significant aspects of this approach is that it brings in poor and marginalized as the major stakeholders in the discourse . As JohnGaventa pointed out “For poor and marginalized 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 reformist approach is in the best of social-democratic legacy of political theory . As a political approach it has a real potential to influence changes in the arena and institutions of governance in a significant way. However, the citizens-centered approach often reflects implicit assumptions of a liberal-democratic-state and relatively “aware” “citizen”. While this approach stress on “empowerment’ of citizens and grassroots politics and micro-politics ( in local self governments etc) , it does not necessarily challenge the “macro-politics” at the national and international level and “ 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 marginalized across the world through out history, due to the structural causes of marginalization . In spite of the notion of inclusive citizenship, such an approach is not sufficient to include the structurally and historically marginalized and disenfranchised people, 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 reformist to a transformative politics, ethics and governance. Such a transformative approach on the one hand builds on some of the ideas and actions in the progressive reformative paradigm and at the same time seeks to transcend the limitation of such an approach by bringing in new political analysis based on Justice, Equity and Solidarity.
d) Critical Transformism: Just and Human Rights based Approach.
Hence, this paper seeks to articulate an approach that can be termed as 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 the existing systems through alternative perspective and methods that have a potential to transform governance, society and politics.
Such an approach seeks to challenge and change unjust system with policy as well as political process and at the same time expands the space and boundaries of social and political action. It is practical as well as idealist at the same time. It signifies an inside- out side approach. - meaning within the system and at the same time beyond it in terms of politics, beliefs and immediate interests. It works with the systems too by constantly influencing them , so as to make them just, democratic and transparent. Though in its envisioning, it’s radical, in terms of its practice , methods and strategies, it is more of systemic transformism as distinct from radical tranformism( which seeks to replace one set of system with a whole set of new 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 reflect the approach of critical transformism...
IV. Just and Democratic Governance.
The process of the just and democratic governance will seek to transform unjust power relations through political and ethical process. Its purpose is social transformation through the realization 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 distinct is the centrality of Justice- Gender, social, economic, distributive and ecological- in defining the politics of Governance and that of the institutional and policy priorities.
People are at the centre of such a perspective and the conceptualization. And such an approach necessarily includes a sense of inclusive empowerment of all people (including the disenfranchised and excluded citizen) as well as advocacy for a transparent, effective and efficient institutional framework and the Rule of Law.
Just and Democratic Governance is driven by the practice of human rights, accountability and empowerment of the 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 freedom to access information. Freedom of information and expression without an independent, responsible, accessible and effective media is a freedom that cannot be exercised.
Such an approach seeks to challenge unaccountable and unjust institutions, transnational corporations and the monopoly of military and market power at all levels. 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. 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 the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The claim of human rights by the people and the marginalized group demands a transformation of power relationship within the various arenas of governance. This means the Rule of Law and the legal, political and institutional spaces are crucial prerequisites for just and democratic governance.
. From this perspective, we need to build a theory and practice of governance based on six interconnected and interdependent dimensions such as democratization, human rights, justice, peoples’ participation, accountability and responsiveness.
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 the global for the realization of all human rights, freedom and Justice.
1. 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 freedoms- freedom fear, freedom from want, freedom of belief and freedom of associations.
2. Such a normative framework is based on ethics of human dignity and equality of human persons and involves the challenging of unjust power relations in the institutional and policy spaces at all level.
3. Just and Democratic Governance implies a perspective that seeks to transform power relations in 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 amplifying the “voices” of the excluded and the participation of disenfranchised people.
4. The core of such a perspective is the notions 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 process in their quest to recognize realize and expand their sense of human rights, freedom as well as entitlements.
5.
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 grass roots democratization and Swaraj- Self-rule( Mahatma Gandhi). The people’s planning process, participatory budgeting, citizens’ tribunal and social audit are some of the innovative methods used by the proponents of such an approach.
a) Democratization and Democracy.
Democratization is a political as well an ethical process based on human dignity and the empowerment of people. Democratization strengthen the capacity of people to participate in governance of those decisions and institutions that affect their lives, Democratization involves devolution of power in all institutional arenas. This also means democratization of information, knowledge, economic resources and technology. Thus the ethics and practice of democratization is relevant from all institutional settings from family, to the state and global institutions.
Democratization, as political and ethical value, depends on the equality of all human persons, irrespective of gender, cast, ethnicity or race. Democratization help to realize their rights to participate in social and political process, rights to development and rights to live with dignity.
While democratization is more of an ethical and political value, democracy is political System of government. True democratic governance requires both the process of democratization and the effectiveness of democracy as a political system, based on the Rule of Law and accountable institutions.
However there are multiple perspectives and approaches to democracy. 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 for a, streets are occupied by those demanding more democracy in global processes; in small villages and neighborhoods and 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 crisis of democracy or democratic deficit, is to extend democracy itself- that is to go beyond 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 marginalized 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 realize the freedom from fear and want.
It is not merely elections or universal adult franchise that defines the process of democracy. While constitutional framework and human rights guarantees can form the grammar of democracy, it is always people and the ethical quality of 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 inform and involve in the process of governance and development, democracy becomes an empty rhetoric. Democracy dies where discrimination begins and 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 realizes to the greatest conceivable degree the principles of popular control and equality in its exercise( Betham 1992:40)
In the rights based approach to governance, the emphasis is on participatory democracy and radicalizing democracy – implying a movement of democracy from representative democracies to participatory democracies in the longer term on the one hand, and democratization of institutions of power on the other- at all levels- particularly democratizing international governance- a system of accessible, transparent and accountable governance which, for equitable national and global development, respects human rights and rule of law.
A substantive democratic governance demands radicalizing democracy, through the deepening and widening of the process of democratization of state and all institutions of governance. Social movements and civil society organizations, which act as counterbalances and counterweights to the dominant powers of state and non-state actors, have an important role in deepening democratic process and expand the spaces wherein poor and excluded people can participate as well as challenge the process of governance. Democratic and human rights based approach is informed by the actions, policies and Programmes to make sure that poor and excluded can challenge and change unequal and unjust power relationship inherent in the process of governance at various levels.
The process of democratization has both grassroots and global dimensions. The process of grassroots democratization involves the democratization of economy, information, knowledge, technology and institution that can strengthen the agency of people at the community level. Such a process will necessarily involve the empowerment the excluded and disenfranchised.
Democratization at the global level requires 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, where in participants in a discourse are open to be persuaded by the better argument and the relations of power and hierarchies recede in the background. The goal of such communicative action is to reach reasoned consensus. Sense of solidarity, a sense of identifying with fellow human beings with a sense of shared bond of humanness and dignity, can make the process of democratization deliberate, creative and participatory.
There is a need to construct a pluralistic history of the process of democratization in various social and cultural contexts ethical traditions such as Buddhism and Islam. Amartya Sen in his recent book, Argumentative Indian, discussed the various trajectories and histories of ethical governance ( particularly that during the reign of Asoka and later by the Mugal Emperor Akbar). Some of the most inspiring experiments of grassroots democratization and the claiming democracy at the national level emerged during the struggle against colonialism and apartheid.
In most of the discussions on governance and democracy, there is hardly any mention about the freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi, Civil Rights movement by Martin Luther King or the struggle against apartheid by Nelson Mandela. The process of Democratization is also a function of the culture and history at a given point in time. However, such histories and experience are often ignored or marginalized by the academic institutions and other proponents of the dominant models of liberal democracy. The very political economy of knowledge production and dissemination is still controlled by the privileged institutions and think tanks in the global north. Hence most of us are taught a privileged history and model of dominant versions of democracy.
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-relationship within and beyond institutions and based on the notion of accountability and answerability.
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 to all. Its political and ethical approach ensures that human rights are claimed and realized in an empowering way and strengthen 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. The state’s political and moral responsibility is 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-centered advocacy mobilizes 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 policy making and implementation.
Rights based and people centered approach to governance also means provision of legitimate spaces to question, to dissent peacefully, to develop alternatives by the citizens and institutionally by the civil society. Human Rights based approach necessarily involves affirmative action to ensure women’s rights as well as the rights of minorities and marginalized people. These are spaces for critical engagements – where civil society at times works to place checks on state power and at other time as collaborators in placing checks on private sector and power of international capital - particularly where application of national laws is not solely enough for justice (so that the governments, corporations, multilateral institutions and individuals representing institutions are held accountable for their actions).
c) Justice
In the absence of Justice, any process of Governance and any Governments can monopolies power, and exclude large sections of people from 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 found on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole can not override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a grater good shared by others. Being 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 scope of the Rawlsian principles of Justice, Amartya Sen pointed out that the notions freedom; agency, capabilities and entitlement are enabling conditions for a Just and Democratic Governance. Entitlement are achieved by virtue of human rights and Capabilities enable people to choose and achieve different and necessary aspects of life physical needs as well as social aspect of well being such as participation and self worth( Sen 1999: 74-6).
Poverty is denial of justice (social, economic, gender and ecological) and that of human rights. The human dignity and self worth of the poor and excluded people are violated by unjust systems and practices of governance. In an unjust system of governance, poor people and excluded are treated less than human. Unjust form Governance is often used to cheat, subjugate and exploit them from cradle to the grave. Justice and Human Rights together help us to form a moral basis, legal options and political space to challenge the dehumanization as well the causes and consequence of poverty and injustice.
d) Participation:
Creating enabling political and social conditions for the participation of people in governance is a very important aspect. Another feature of this understanding of governance is about the nature of participation which fosters empowerment; and of democracy where participation is both a practice and a political philosophy. Participation is not a mere strategy to manufacture consent, manipulate consensus or extract cheap labour. Participation is a principle based on an inclusive moral choice; participation means sharing power, legitimacy, freedom, responsibilities and accountability. Participation is both a principle and means to include as many people as possible in the process of social change. Built on a deep respect for plurality, 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 mobilization and knowledge capacity to monitor governance. There has to be affirmative actions to expand the spaces and role of Women’s Political Participation and the participation of the marginalized people and communities. This requires both knowledge based activism and grassroots mobilization. Participation is a sharing of power and ability to influence the process and outcome of decision-making process. Participation becomes meaningful when people have enabling spaces, mechanism and power to participate. Monitoring of governance is a means to participate in governance and policy making and influencing process.
e) Accountability
Democratic Accountability is both political and ethical. Accountability also denotes legal, social, economic and managerial aspects. Accountability is about answerability and enforceability. Answerability means the right to get information and clear response from any institutions or authority and the obligation of such institutions to provide information and response to such stake-holders. Enforceability denotes the capacity to ensure that a redressal is done or action is taken to correct a wrong action, wrong policy . Empowerment of people in terms of information, knowledge and mobilization is a prerequisite to demand 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 decision makers and power-holders. From the perspective of democratic governance, people and citizens are the owners and the shapers of the State. The sovereignty of the Sate is derived from the sovereignty of the 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 various public and private institutions, political parties, civil society formations and NGO wield power and control resources and take actions and decision that affect the lives, choices and livelihood of people. Hence there has to be broader understanding, politics and ethics of accountability. The big players in the markets like transnational corporations, big financial operators, including bank and big media corporation increasingly tend to shape the boundaries of the state and 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 market, and accumulation of wealth and information.
Hence the notion of public accountability should ensure accountability of the state, governments and its institutions, corporate accountability, media accountability, accountability of the political parties and that of NGOs. All institutions and organizations that operate in the public sphere and market place need to be necessarily accountable to people, citizens and all stake holders.
One of the preconditions for Accountability is the Right to Information and political space and institutional mechanism to seek effective accountability from the 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 self-interest of the few powerful. In many ways Autonomy and accountability are very much linked.
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-visa affected parties or stake holders. These stake holders must be able to evaluate the actions of decision makers and to sanction them if their performance is poor, or even removing from their positions of authority “( Held and Mathias-2005).
There are many innovative forms of seeking accountability. The process of budget tracking , social audit, citizens’ tribunals, public hearings, people’s commission , and the monitoring of institutions of governance and public policies by citizens grouped proved to be effective means towards strengthening accountability.
There are multiple approaches to accountability. A typology of Accountability( adapted and expanded based on the IDS typology) is given below:
Political accountability
i) Consists of Checks and balances within the state including over delegated individuals in public offices responsible for carrying out specific tasks on behalf of people or citizens.
ii) The state provides an account of its actions, and consults citizens and stake holders prior to taking action in order to enforce rights and responsibilities.
iii) Mechanisms of political accountability can be both horizontal and vertical. The state can have its own horizontal mechanisms like, such as ombudsman, parliamentary audit committee, autonomous office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Citizens and Civil Society uses elections, court cases, public interest litigation or political mobilizations.
iv) Legal provisions and effective mechanism for Right to Information as well as information disclosure.
v) Regular and predictable space for citizen’s and people’s participating in the formulation and monitoring of budget.
vi) A new accountability framework for the Political Parties( as they hold enormous power in a democratic polity) to disclose their sources of income, expenditure and provisions to regulate corporate donations for political parties.
Social Accountability:
i) Focuses on people’s actions or civil society initiatives to hold state and its institutions of government to account for using social mobilization, people-centred advocacy, investigative reports, media advocacy, public hearings, social audits, reports card, and citizens’ tribunals.
ii) Addresses such issues such as human rights violations, security of people, judicial autonomy, and access to justice, electoral frauds and corruptions at various levels.
iii) Seeks to expand social and political spaces to seek accountability from Corporate Houses, Media and other powerful actors.
iv) Demands accountability from powerful financial institutions, including all International Financial Institutions such as World Bank, to be accountable , transparent and responsive to the communities where their projects are implemented and to people at large.
v) Seeks to strengthen the accountability mechanism and transparency measures of civil society organizations, NGOs and all such institutions in the public space.
Ethical Accountability
i) Stresses accountability to a certain systems of values within democratic principles as well as values of Justice, equity and Freedom. Ethical accountability has both personal and institutional dimension and scope beyond the conventional territories of the nation-state.
ii) This also means Powerful countries are not only accountable to the people or ‘demos’ of their respective country. They are 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 the global military hegemony.
iii) It also focuses on seeking accountability of Business Corporation who seeks to monopolize agriculture and food products and those who are in the business of making various kinds of medicine and drugs and research in biotechnology or patenting of life forms. This has deep moral implications beyond one country or people. Hence ethical limits to market monopoly and efforts to regulate such corporations and make them accountable to this and coming generations can be a part of ethical accountability.
iv) Inter-generational accountability in terms of environment and climate change. This includes personal accountability to values of sustainable consumptions, less carbon emissions and accountability to peoples and generations who will be affected by our own individual and societal action, consumptions and behaviors.
v) Includes ethical accountability in terms of attitude, behavior and language to ensure dignity and respect for women, ethnic, religious or racial minorities and resisting all forms of discrimination based on gender, race, language, cast or ethnicity.
Managerial Accountability;
i) Focuses on financial accounting and reporting, system accountability within state institutions, judged according to agreed performance criteria
ii) Regular Auditing , appraisals and systems to ensure internal management integrity and effective and efficient use of financial and management resources
iii) New forms of accountability such as environmental and social audits
iv) Disclosure of the sources of income , expenditure and management principle in a predictable and systematic manner. Managerial accountabilities are often upward accountability. However, increasingly notions of horizontal accountability and downward accountability are recognized.
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 mobilization, information and knowledge as well as the innovative use of media, technology, internet, social and policy research. As the power in the international arena and global space are increasing appropriated by the 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 organizations.
Weighed voting at the World Bank and IMF means greater control and power by few rich countries in the global north. Though the World Bank and IMF claim that they are accountable to their stake holders and they are relatively better transparent in terms of information disclosure and they have Inspectional Panel and Evaluation agencies, these organizations are far from being democratically accountable and often they become the handmaiden of the rich countries and the business interest of the rich and powerful corporations.
The role of International and National NGOs and Civil Society organizations have increased significantly both in terms of resources, network, knowledge, discourse as well as the power of influencing. These institutions and organizations function in the public sphere and most of them work on behalf of the poor and marginalized people. Hence they are public institutions and depend largely on the financial support from people or from the tax payer’s money through bilateral funding. Hence, there is an urgent need for NGOs and all Civil Society Organizations 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 the policy and decision makers to be accountable, just or democratic.
F) Responsiveness
Effective accountability demands Responsiveness from the Institutions and organizations who hold power. Responsiveness implies the capacity to deliver public policies and programme in an effective, efficient and participatory manner. Responsiveness implies 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 the institutions. A corollary aspect of proactive response is the effective and transparent use of social and economic responses to deliver the key mandate or mission of the respective organization. However, this can only be done when there is enough internal policies and legal framework to make sure that organization 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 the principles of effective, accountable management and the respect for human rights and social justice.
In a reactive sense, responsiveness implies the ability to respond to a demand, to a question or to a need in an effective and efficient way. Reactive side of responsiveness is also closely linked to the Social and ethical accountability of institutions.
While the perspective of Just and Democratic Governance emphasizes the aspect of Justice, Human Rights, Democratic participation as well as democratic accountability, it also stresses the effective management of institutions and resources and Responsiveness.
V. Characteristics of Just and Democratic Governance( JD Governance)
It also helps to create 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 the diversity of forms of governance and the level of evolution of the 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 is being questioned) the strategies and means to influence or participate in the process of governance needs to be contextualized, and should be based on the analysis of the power in multiple arenas of governance
1) Agency and Empowerment of People : It is Local and Global at the same time.
The first and foremost characteristics of JD-Governance is that it is claimed, and shaped by people through social mobilization, struggles for human rights and social justice and through the active agency of their experience and politics. In this case, People do 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 global, in the sense grassroots democratization 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 Democratization, the manner in 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.
II) A comprehensive and political approach to Democratic Accountability
The accountability framework of JD-Governance is multi-sectoral and comprehensive in its approach. It proposes that any Institution or organization or authority ( Government, non-governmental, market-driven or Civil Society Driven) operating in the public sphere and among or with large number of people will have to be accountable ( politically, socially and ethically) to not only their direct stake holders, but to people at large. Authority and power can be visible or invisible, direct or indirect, coercive or consensual, argumentative or persuasive, all pervading or contextual. All such organizations or authority in the public sphere can derive multiple modes and sources of power from rules, laws, values, norms, culture, communications, language and knowledge. Any organizations or authority using any forms or source of power can affect a large number people in terms of shaping their choices, values, beliefs and action. Hence all such organizations, public persons or authority need to necessarily accountable to the primary stake-holders as well people.
This means Accountability is sought, demanded and claimed from both State and non-state actors, including media, business corporations and political parties. Accountability is two way traffic. Any organizations, including civil society organizations that seek accountability also need to be accountable to the people.
3) Critical Engagement:
The JD-Governance approach seeks to engage with and influence all actors in the society, including those institutions and authorities with whom you do not agree with. Critical engagement means the ability to listen, challenge, change and transform. Critical engagement is not about endorsement, neither about co-option, nor about partisan partnership. It is about the responsibility to engage through direct discussions as well as through public arguments.
4)People-centred Advocacy:
People-centred advocacy is a set of organized actions aimed at influencing public policies, societal attitudes and socio-political processes that enable and empower the marginalized to speak for themselves. Its purpose is social transformation through the realization 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 mobilizing 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.
Ethical Choices: In people-centred advocacy " being" is as important as " becoming"
• Unless one believes in a cause, one cannot advocate for that particular cause. Integrity and legitimacy of advocates are what provide moral force to advocacy. Hence, it seeks to bridge the gap between the words and the deeds; theory and practice; rhetoric and real life experience. It stresses that unless you challenge and change yourself, you cannot change others.
• People-centred advocacy stresses the compatibility of means and ends. Unjust means can never be used for a just end. In this sense, people-centred advocacy seeks to change unjust power relations through non-violent direct action.
Rights Based Approach: People-centred advocacy encompasses a human rights-based approach to social change and transformation ( John Samuel 1996)
5) Obligatory Role of the State in ensuring Human Right.
The obligatory role of the state in guaranteeing human rights to all and in providing public services is crucial for a just and democratic governance. Governments can not abdicate its responsibility and duty to respect civil and political rights and fulfill economic, social and cultural rights.
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. Right to Information, Right to Participation and Right to accountable governance should form key building blocks to ensure democratization, 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 excluded are primary duty of the state and its institutions.
6) Challenging the Unjust World Order. One of the key causes of
Poverty, disease and deprivation is the unjust and unaccountable world order. Unjust and unequal power relations, subvert justice . Militarization, arms-race, small arms, unjust trade rules and conflicts are some of major causes of poverty, injustice and human rights violations in this world. The unprecedented power of the International Financial institution, the increasing dominance of trade, aid and transnational corporations, and unregulated finance capital raise serious questions about ethics, politics and legitimacy of the new mandarins in the international policy making process. Hence, it is important to challenge the double speak on human rights, diversity and pluralism.
Such an approach stress on the mobilization of poor, disenfranchised, excluded as well as citizens towards ensuring global solidarity of people to demand justice and seek accountability and democratization at all levels.
7) Monitoring of Public policies and Governance:
Those who are in authority or power hardly give power or 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 deliberately to promote accountability, participation or responsiveness or human rights. Unless it is claimed by people , the authority by default tend to acuminate power, create a culture of secrecy and control. Hence People’s constant vigil and constant monitoring of policies, governance at the grassroots level, national level and international level is an important aspect of JD Governance.
With the advent of information and communication revolution, there is an increasing roles and space for digital democracy, virtual mobilization 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 the 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 media and advocacy are all part of such an approach.
This also involves strategies to track budget and resources, to monitor the market and transnational corporation, 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.
There is an increasing sense of democratic deficit and lack of political legitimacy of the governments both in rich and poor countries. Hence, it is important to have peoples and citizens and actions to promote enabling legislations to ensure the Right to Information, Rights for Citizens Participation, Women’s Political Participation, Local Self Government and Budget Accountability. Effective Monitoring Governance requires democratic space and basic human rights. In the absence effective public accountability and transparency, corruption spreads like cancer in the whole arena of governance and public management, zapping resources, perpetuating poverty, injustice and conflicts.
VII Linking Theory and Practice:
Arenas for Action and Advocacy:
1)Governance and Development: At the dawn of the new Millennium ,the largest gathering of the heads of state promised to their own people and to the people of the world that ‘we will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty”.
Development is the realization all human rights, particularly socio-economic rights, wherein people can enjoy the freedom from fear and freedom from want and live a life of dignity.
In the midst of broken promises and ever increasing policy rhetoric, more than 1.3 billion poor continue to struggle with less than dollar a day and more and more people are at receiving end of the violation of human rights, market invasion and unilateral militarization. Inequality and injustice is increasing at an unprecedented pace, with resultant exclusion, conflicts and erosion of rights. Poverty is the denial of rights to live with dignity and result of unequal and unjust powerful relationship within families and among communities as well as countries...
The most basic of rights are trampled upon – very few countries in the developing world provide their citizens with rights over food, employment, health, education, basic services and shelter. Constitutions which share this intent in spirit, do not go beyond listing them as “progressively desirable” arguing that there are not enough resources to make these possible. In such situation, the intents remain noble in formulations, yet distant in practice precisely because the very foundations of injustice are not addressed.
Women continue to be one of the most marginalized groups at a great risk of security and loss of rights. In most countries, women do not have property rights as legal and constitutional provisions... Political participation of women is low, and the MDGs fail to address women’s rights
Across the continents, conflicts are one of the most pressing challenges faced today. Exacerbated by inequity in access and control over resources and poor governance, conflicts undermine all the gains of development, legitimizing violence and abuse of human rights. There is a clear link between unaccountable and ineffective governance and vulnerability to human made disasters and conflicts. Africa, LAC and Asia are plagued by conflicts and violence. Sixty-three countries in these continents are plagued by conflicts of one nature or another. More people have lost lives from conflicts and disasters in this decades compared to the previous decades.
Public resources in countries are squandered without any accountability and for building up military might and defense expenditures. Corruption reproduces the impoverishment process and weakens the very core of democratization. Major portions of public funds are also channelized in the areas of debt servicing, further liberalization and other non-redistributive non developmental ends. Ten African countries, for instance, spend more on debt repayments than on health and education. It is no wonder then that concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of corporations and individuals is happening at a rapid pace
Such situation is the result of lack of democratic accountability, responsiveness and justice system. But it is also because of the lack of accountability and effectiveness of the international aid regime, and the extractive nature of the international trade regime and aid and debt dependency of the poor country. Addressing the issues of development, poverty eradication, women’s empowerment and climate change require action and advocacy from the local, to the national to international levels. The rich countries and multilateral organizations can not wish away from the causes and consequences of poverty. Hence JD governance should be a means for addressing the issues of poverty, injustice and development, both in the south and in the north.
2) Making Governance work at the grassroots: Building local democracy:
Institutions of Local Self Governments and the process of Local Self Governance can become very important means of effective grassroots and community level democratization, participation and accountability. Decentralization of Governments, devolutions of power, administration and financial resources help to strengthen the delivery, effectiveness and accountability of common goods and services. Innovative practices like Participatory Planning( E.g.: Kerala in India) and Participatory Budgeting( E.g. Porto Algre in Brazil) help to make governance work at the grassroots level through substantive participation of citizens and public accountability at community level. While many of the governments across the world tend to move towards to decentralization 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 finances, Local self Governments and decentralization become empty rhetoric to serve the interest of central governments and powerful bureaucracies.
3) Corporate Accountability: The big transnational corporations and finance capital market increasingly shape economic governance. Economic governance has taken precedence over both political and social governance. The key shapers and movers of economic governance are the unaccountable and non-transparent multinational corporations who control the market and media and thrive on unaccountable and unjust governance system. In this process, the shareholders, consumers, communities and employees get marginalized and lose their bargaining power to seek accountability. Hence, seeking accountability and monitoring the action and governance of the big and rich corporations will be important to challenge their influence on the governance institutions within the ambit of the state and also force accountability within the market and also communities in which they operate.
While Corporate Social Responsibility can be an incremental step by the big corporations to seek legitimacy, the CSR does not provide an adequate framework for Corporate Accountability. Corporate Accountability is political, ethical as well as economic. At a time when big corporations are beginning to control the entire agribusiness, including the production and marketing and large monopolies are emerging, the entire right to food of poor people and marginal farmers under unprecedented threat. Though India is supposed to be doing well in terms of economic growth, finance capital market and foreign direct investment, thousands of farmers have committed suicide due to debt-trap and economic crisis perpetuated by big corporations. This is equally important in the case of multinational pharmaceutical, mining corporations, producers of small arms and military equipments. The present trend of economic globalisation has also accelerated corruptions as the big corporations increasingly try to get access to the market as well as the raw material by bribing the political elites of poor countries. The profit hungry, growth-driven and consumerist based economic paradigm is responsible for unprecedented level of carbon emission and climate change. Hence Corporate Accountability is a pre-requisite to move towards a more just and sustainable world.
4) Women’s Political Participation and Leadership in Governance: All over the world women have less power in all institutional arena. 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 spaces of policy making 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 either at the local level or at the national level.
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.
5) Accountable Civil Society Organization: Accountability cannot be a one-way traffic. Accountability and participation require space and capacity to be answerable to the multiple actors and primarily to the people on whose behalf many of the CSO are working. The legitimacy of the Civil Society Organizations and the NGOs are increasingly questioned as many of them are perceived as less accountable ‘private initiative (enterprises or business) for service delivery. A rights based approach requires that all organizations that work with civil society or within civil society need to be publicly transparent and accountable. This can only be done when there is a governance system that promotes accountability, transparency within Civil Society Organization and NGOs. Without public accountability and spaces for citizens’ engagement and participation, CSOs and NGOs will not have the moral and political legitimacy to challenge unaccountable and ineffective governments or governance.
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 monopolize and control power at the social, political and economic arena; from local to global. We need to recognize that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. A new wave of grassroots and global democratization 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 Kind Said: “We have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and non violent pressure … Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
References
1. Beetham, D (1992) “Liberal Democracy and limits of Democratization”. Political Issues, Special Issue, Vol 40.
2. Falk, Richard (2005): Humane Governance for the world: Reviving the Quest, Global Governance Reader. Ed Rorden Wilkinson, Rutledge, London and New York
3. Gaventa, John (2007). Foreword to Space for Change? Edited by Andrea Cornwall ad Vera Schattan Coelho.
4. Habermas, Jurgen (1981) Theory of Communicative Action
5. Hunter. F (1953): Community Power Structures: A study of Decision Makers, Chapel Hill, and University of North Carolina Press.
6. Rawls, John (1999). A Theory of Justice( Harvard University Press, MA, Cambridge)
7. Sen, Amartya (1999): Development as Freedom (Oxford; Oxford University Press).
8. Wrights, Mills.C (1956) : The Power Elites( New York, Oxford University Press, republished in 2000)
9. Commission on Global Governance (1995), Oxford University Press, New York.p.2
10. OECD (1995): Participatory Development and Good Governance. Paris. P 14.
11. The Mehbub ul Haq, Human Development Centre (1999), Human Development in South Asia: The crisis of Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford. P 28.
12. World Bank (1994), Governance, The World Bank’s experience, Washington DC. P xiv
13. UNDP (1997): Governance for Sustainable Human Development. New York. Pp- 2-3
14.Mani, Rama(2002) Beyond Retribution, Seeking Justice in the Shadow of War, Polity Press, Cambridge
15. Held, David, Mathias Koenig-archibugi: Global Governance and Public Accountability. Balckwell Publishing.
16. Calrk, John( 2003): Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the battle for Ethical Globalisation. Earthscan, London
