Women’s Rights and spaces in Kerala

John Samuel


There is indeed a whole range of issues related to gender, women's political participation, space and voice in Kerala. But I also think there is increasing awareness and discussion on these issues in Kerala, in relation to many other states.

In spite of relatively better human development index and gender development index of Kerala, there is indeed a real question about the entrenched patriarchy and less space for women' voice in the political party process, public debates and discussions.

This paradox of gender "development" index and the relative lack of women's empowerment in Kerala need to be discussed and understood. There are a number of paradoxes, contradictions and tension - operating in Kerala society (and that is also the case with almost all other societies.)

The paradox of ‘empowerment’ and ‘space’ is one among them. In spite of having one of the biggest percentage of highly ‘qualified’ or ‘educated’ women in Kerala, there is relatively less space in the leadership roles, articulate voices and empowered roles within the public and private spaces. The fact that such issues are discussed is also the beginning of a change process. Such a process of transformation requires more affirmative action and more active political participation of women in all arena- in academics, politics, media, and social action.

The first thing women and men will have to fight is an entrenched sense of cynicism.
It is important for enlightened and educated women and men to work together to expand the quantity and quality of those spaces. It is important to participate and shape the discussions elsewhere. When we begin to believe in change, change begins to unfold within us and beyond us.

There is nothing like a homogeneous category of ‘women’ or ‘men’- beyond their physical/biological differences. Multiple identities are as much operational among women as much as among men- class, cast, religion, locality, sexual orientation etc.

Both women and men can be perpetrators of patriarchy. In fact, many such values may be perpetuated by women- partly because of the internalized sense of ‘norms’ constructed and made almost pathological over a period of time.

Just because a woman is part of a reactionary, or fundamentalist or established power structure does not necessarily make such structures and processes less patriarchal. Almost all women leaders in South Asia are the torchbearers of a set of conservative values -- and not expressions of feminist politics-- by any stretch of imagination.



I wonder whether the kind of trend of growing fundamentalism is specific to one gender- women. In fact, the "patriarchal" power is perpetuated by the men - who control religious establishment, consumer stores and institutions of spirituality and religion. It seems there is nothing new in the fact that women seem to be more in to "bhakti" mode or more manifestly religious or spiritual. This also may have to do with ‘family' behavioral pattern (again perpetuated by a patriarchy). And there is nothing new about the trend- about relatively more spiritual/religious inclination among women. This aspect requires more serious research in relation to the constructed roles of gender in different societies and its relation to "cultural", "spiritual" "creative", "reproductive" and "fertility" etc.

There is indeed a revival of religion- in its conservative as well as consumerist avatars. And this new revival of religion - in institutional, political and market varieties- is a larger trend. So how can one link this only with "gender"- or say that "why women are like that?" Of course, we tend to see what we look for.

The new revival of religion- and "spiritual" customer-care oriented new market approach has a lot to do with new sense of alienation and insecurity - in the midst of economic growth, increasing disintegration of community/family spaces, saturation of "secular" dreams, and increasing sense of social, economic and political insecurity, as well as political reactions to perceived sense of marginalization, exclusion etc. So it is nothing peculiar to Kerala. This is happening all over Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, Europe and the USA.

The new revivalism is also partly a reactionary response to and partly a byproduct of aggressive economic globalization. These days there are many "drive in Churches"- very customer-care oriented, well-marketed, no-strings attached- of course one is expected to pay for a well-organized/managed "Sunday" service. There is no-community or real communion. They are the new service providers in a new market place- because there is new demand for a particularly packaged "psycho-comfort," "feel-good" product- available, accessible and affordable.

We need serious discussions and explorations about the "gender spaces" in Kerala. We need to explore the apparent dichotomies and tensions of such gender-power relationship in the ‘public’, ‘private’ and ‘intimate’ spaces. There are serious contradictions in Kerala between the perceived ‘empowerment’ of women- taking the social development and gender-development indicators and real ‘disempowerment’- particularly in the private spaces of family and ‘intimate’ spaces of bedrooms, though seemingly ‘empowered’ in the public sphere.



This also may have to be done by challenging our own personal attitude, behavior and communication. It is true many of men (including me) tend to be arrogant and argumentative in our communication- without enough patience or grace to listen to the perspective and perception. Many may find the aggressive argumentative mode of communication (which many of us men are used to) as a sort of masculine behavior. At a personal level, it is indeed a struggle to challenge and change our default mode of aggressive mode of arguments and modes of communication. I hope we all can continue to challenge and change ourselves at the personal and societal level.

Though there are some discussions in the Kerala on issues related to women's space and empowerment and the entrenched patriarchy, I think Kerala society has to go a long way in terms of recognizing and addressing the issue of women's space and empowerment -at all levels.


( This is a part of my discussions on women's rights in the Fourth Estate e-mail discussion group- moderated from Kerala. I would like to thank my partner Dr. Bina Thomas and my friend Mr.NP Chekkutty, senior journalist, for stimulating and compiling the discussions on women's rights in Kerala)

On Leadership and Organizational Culture

John Samuel



The quality of an organization- its culture, its over-all character- is to a large extent influenced by the quality of its leadership models. Many institutions unconsciously tend to imitate the leader in terms of culture, character and leadership styles. The character of Leadership can be contagious in a positive as well as negative sense.

Confident leader will induce a confident organization. Insecure leader can induce an insecure organization.

Insecure leaders and organization can also develop an acute sense of paranoia; a derivative of "self-doubt"-and internal crisis of conviction. When a leader or an organization suffers from "self-doubt"- or credibility-deficit, they tend to externalize a problem. They will not take the responsibility for their leadership gaps and the consequent crisis within an organization. Usually insecure leaders tend to find fault with others, external factors rather than taking responsibility by themselves. They tend to correct others and less inclined to introspect or correct themselves.


Any one in leadership positions in any organization will have to be aware of one slippery road. Once your are in a position of power within the hierarchy of an organization, most of the people will tell you what you want to hear. Once you get in to that mode, slowly there will be more and more people around you, telling what you want to hear. Gradually only those people who say what you want to hear- will be around you. That is how coteries are being formed. They will tell you that you are the most fantastic leader they have ever "experienced". - They will use "superlative' to tell more and more lies about you to make you happy. Who does not like to be flattered? Who does not like praises?

Such coteries will keep “alerting” you about impending dangers, problems, about lurking trouble makers or about those who are not loyal. Coteries create a power-grid around the leader- to derive power for themselves. Coteries are usually formed by those who do not have their own steam or capacity and they derive their power through their perceived proximity to the leader. And those insecure leaders who cultivate and nurture a coteries around her/him need them to boost her/his sense of confidence and to guard against their perpetual fear about those who may try to undermine them. Eventually the coterie becomes an insulation around the leader- and the leader begins to lose touch with the pulse of an organization or the real issues within the organization. That is the beginning of the down fall of those who are in the leadership.

Usually those leaders with the courage of conviction and ability to rise above the rest will not cultivate or encourage coteries or partisan groups within the organization.

But those who get in to the trap of coterie will never “grow- within”. To grow- “within’- one has to constantly outgrow oneself. And one can not outgrow oneself if someone does not challenge oneself- constantly and consistently. Unless one keeps challenge oneself, one can not grow. Unless one begins to learn to listen, to be challenged and learn to absorb and manage them, one can not outgrow oneself. Unless one constantly learn and unlearn, one can not nurture her/his leadership quality.

Leadership is all about Integrity, Imagination, Ideas and Influence. Leadership is all about the ability to learn, listen, advance, enable, renew, and synergize. Leadership is all about the capacity and confidence to be honest, to initiate, to innovate and to inspire. Finally good leadership is driven by deep sense of people and purpose. The corner stone of good leadership is a sense of integrity, fair-play and courage of conviction. Leadership is also the ability to manage people, resources, and systems to make the best impact. Those with good leadership skills and capacity can become good managers. Those with managerial capacity do not have to be necessarily leaders or those endowed with high leadership qualities.

Managers are those with ability to make the best use of available resources in an effective and efficient way to get the best desired output or out-come. Managers are often driven by their task and targets within a given point in time. Good managers can optimize the use of people, and systems through plans, process and performance. Leadership requires the ability to inspire, envision and conceptualize strategies much larger than a given task or target or an operation. Leadership requires an ability to see the big picture and small picture at the same time.


An ethical and empowered leadership means enabling a creative, learning and confident culture with in the organization- through walking the talk and consistently bridging the gap between words and deeds. This also means the ability to be challenged and challenge – in an enabling manner. Such leaders will encourage colleagues to be frank and honest about their perception and perspective.

One of my most respected colleagues was the one who asked tough questions to me; the more he questioned, the more I learned- the more I listened to him, the more I learned. And when he realized that the more I learned, the more he supported and respected me. In the course I learned something I was less inclined to: Financial Management.

How does a leader derives power? What are the sources of power within a leader?

It matters weather a leader derives a sense of "power" from deep "within: - (from his or her sense of mission or calling) or from the positions he/she occupies in the organization

Many who derive power from "positions" tend to exert "power over"- through 'control' and 'manipulations. Their "empowerment" is directly proportional to the position they climb. When such people are internally insecure -emotionally insecure, they may even have 'self-worth" issue. When someone is internally insecure, they will begin to suspect many people who are smarter than them; who are more competent than them, who may be more recognized by the peers than them. Then they need a coterie to keep them float. They will use power over others to dictate, to discipline and to control. Those who manage a team through dictation, discipline and control will not induce a sense of ownership and consequent sense of creativity.
Such leaders may be able to “deliver” a project efficiently – but they will not be able to make change happen or to make path-breaking innovation within an organization.

Such people want to climb the ladder somehow- and since they may not have their "steam"- they derive it from those in positions of power. Those who get power- through loyalty or through "patrons"- also tend to cultivate "loyalty" and a coterie. They need a "coterie" to get a sense of power- because internally they are neither inspired nor empowered.

Loyalty is demanded. Commitment is committed. Commitment requires conviction.

In the case of "loyalty"- the agency is with someone more powerful. The more powerful may demand loyalty from the less powerful.

Those leaders and organization that demand "absolute" loyalty are those who are perpetually "insecure" about themselves- and they need "loyalists" - to sooth them- to tell them what they want to hear. Those who question or challenge the leader will be seen as someone who is less loyal to the leader and those are seen as less loyal to the leader will be projected as those who have less loyalty to the organization. Insecure leaders also induce insecurity all around. Such a sense of insecurity can create an organization consisting of people driven by a sense of “fear” and “punishment”. If the overall culture of an organization is that of mistrust, fear and insecurity, that organization will be a less effective organization and if such an organizational culture prevails, decay and degeneration sets in and the very organization itself may collapse or fade away.

Unlike loyalty, "commitment" is a choice made by a person out her/his own conviction- with a sense of freedom.

Good leadership thrives on challenges within and beyond. Without people challenging them, probing them, questioning them - there is no excitement. And if they are confident, they will induce confidence. The entire organizational culture will become positive, energetic and confident.

Confident leaders will recruit people smarter than them- better than them. A good leader is as good as her/his team. And one can only make creative team when you get the best of people- better than the leader in many ways. Smart leader takes smarter people. When you are surrounded by a creative, committed and competent team- the creative instincts and the learning curve of the leader keep moving to a higher plain- someone with an ability to see the big picture.

Someone whith high leadership quality will have greater instincts to understand and perceive a situation, a group of people and crisis, in much sharper and quicker way. They can understand the individual psychology of a person and the social psychology of the group. Such leaders will have a sense of critical self-awareness.: aware about their own strengths and limitation, opportunities and threat. Such leaders with critical self-awareness will constantly seek feedback from colleagues. They are not afraid to make mistakes and admit a mistake. They are not averse to take risk. They are keen to share credit with others.

A leader with highly evolved leadership quality can rise above the rest and see the things others can not see. Someone who can see the same issue from various angles. Some one who can see the sky and earth at the same time. A good leader is someone whose feet are firmly on the ground and eyes seeks to go beyond the horizon. Someone in a constant mode of learning and listening begin to develop instincts and wisdom to see the unseen, to hear the unheard, to feel the ripples and make the waves. Such leadership will be intuitive enough about the future to shape and make future.

Inspired leaders will induce inspiration. If they are honest with themselves, they will induce people to be honest about their perception. Good leaders can induce positive energy- and once people learn that they can share their perception and feeling honestly- without fear or favor, then the magic happens. Everyone get energized because everyone begins to feel this is "my organization"; this ‘our’ cause- and I too have space and freedom.

The moment people have sense of space and freedom- they take initiatives, they begin to innovate, they begin to create. A good leader is someone who can induce a sense of space, freedom and ownership to each and every person in the team, treating every person as unique. An organizational culture that nurtures a sense of freedom from fear and freedom of expression can become a creative organization.
A creative organization can do wonders. Good leaders are those who can nurture leadership and leaders. The sign of great leader is not how or she is competent or charismatic. The sign of a great leader is how many leaders he/she helped to create. Someone with high quality leadership can simply outgrow herself/himself and move on to new arenas of learning and new sources of challenges. When they outperform themselves, they become redundant within an organization. Such leaders will soon outgrow the organization itself to become the leadership of a the whole sector or the larger society itself.

When the leader gives full credit to the individuals and team- they begin to transform together- and they enjoy mutual critiquing- as friends. Then the most creative discussions and ideas come through fierce arguments and endless debates in a pub or park. They thrive on arguments – and not on submissions.

A good leader will be empathetic, enabling, educative, empowering and enduring.
That is the magic of good organization- a magic of leadership willing to listen and learn; a leader who is slightly skeptical about his/her own ideas- someone who search for the best of ideas from anyone and anywhere- willing to learn constantly. Their enthusiasm and energy can radiate across the organization. They do not need any coterie- because they are driven by a sense of mission much larger than them.

When leaders have a sense of history and purpose larger than them- they know they are actually simple human beings- with feet of clay. Then they know how much they do not know. They should be able to laugh at themselves. When someone say “Sir/Madam you were not in element" or say" your lecture was boring"- they can laugh at themselves and say "Thank you for your feedback. I will try next time”

When we have sense of how much we do not know, then we begin to learn. And leadership is all about learning... from every single person and occasion...endless learning, unlearning, reflection and reworking- constantly thinking and acting....driven beyond the immediate interest, immediate criticism or immediate "loyalists”

Unfortunately in most of the organizations, there are more bureaucrats- and less leaders- with inspired leadership qualities.

Bureaucratic leaders derive power from their appointment letter, those who above them- from their chair. Without their chair, they become zero. So they self-preserve- somehow. There are indeed many good and sincere bureaucrats within organizations- those who go by the books, those with integrity. But they are a product of a structure and system. - not the vehicle for a larger mission- much larger than the person.


(This is a part of my interventions in a discussion on Modes of organizations and power in the Fourth-Estate Critique – an e-mail discussion groups moderated from Kerala, India. I thank my friend Mr. Damodar Prasad of CDIT, Trivandrum for stimulating this reflection largely based on my twenty years of experience in leading and managing organizations and team)

What Constitutes Knowledge?

John Samuel


What constitutes "knowledge"? What and how "knowledge" is generated require more explorations and discussions.

During various periods of history, there have been privileged paradigms of "thought process" "analytical modes" of thinking and expressions. How "knowledge" get constituted, generated, documented and conveyed, need to be understood from a historical, linguistic, technological and political perspective.

For example, stories, parables and poetry ( Jathaka Kathas to one line Taoist sayings to biblical parables) were also means of expressing knowledge at a given point in time. Alchemy was also a knowledge process at one point in time. So was theology. Many of the religious rituals also might t have had a knowledge-constituting function. A novel like Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov may give us more insights, illuminations and understanding than a well-argued and academically valued book on Existentialism, Human Behaviour and personality types.

So "critical thinking"( and critical theory etc) are only one of the many modes of thinking. Knowledge get constituted through language, communities, communications, signs, symbols as well through socialization. Various modes of thinking and expressions of such thinking can be involved in such process. The old carpenter could easily find the "sthanam" or "location" for a well and a house, without the aid of any modern technology or “formal knowledge”. His modes of thinking and expressions of thinking and technology may be different from that of a formally trained water-engineer.- who would use 'scientific" tools to understand "water-table" etc

Our own "privileged" notions of what constitute knowledge may be because of particular Institutional acculturation, 'disciplines", and socialization of knowledge through the modes and modules of "education" many of us have gone through. It may also because of our own preoccupations with the credentials, degrees, skills and language competence

. To a large extent we see what we are trained to see, what we are "socialized" to see, what we are "used" to "seeing" and "reading". We all may have delusions about our own "knowledge" and "competence"- because we are all "products" of particular institutional model of "education" and "knowledge process". It is also because of a particular "disciplinary legitimation'
. For example, for someone publishing a paper in the Economic and Political Weekly( EPW) is seen as signifier of "knowledge generation". For some other's it may be something else. This is also that we have our own "received" notions about who is an "intellectual" or who is a "scientist" or who is an "expert" etc- due to specific forms of legitimation and institutionalized power in various arena and domains of knowledge process.

One of my relatives is a top-rate mechanic- a school drop out. He has deep "critical" understanding and "knowledge" of what will work and what will not work and how to make an Ashok Leyland truck run in the top conditions. His cumulative understanding and knowledge of repairing - around 10 thousand vehicles a year- is amazing. I am almost sure that it is better than a top-end automobile engineer (who got a formal systematized knowledge- acquired in a particular manner).

The only difference is that modes of acquisition and modes of expressions of such knowledge are very different from each other. While the society at a given point in time "legitimize" on form of knowledge because of the received “statuses, other forms and modes of knowledge generation in every day world get ignored.

( This is a part of a discussion on Media and Knowledge in the Fourth Estate Critique – an active google discussion forum moderated from Kerala, India)

Hamara Bharat Mahan!

.
John Samuel


"And we will also make sure that there are no duplicates. That's another important decision. "-

Nandan Nilekani, Chairman of the Unique Identification Authority, CNN-IBN: Interview with Karen Thaper (September 2009)



This is pure India!
Only for pure Indians.
No duplicate, please

Identity –
will now have a number.
Finger prints,
Nose, eyes, ears,
genitals., ass and assholes.
Height, weight, coloure and creed.
Biometry online.

Grandpa can now die peacefully, with a number…
Every child will be born – with a number..
Without a number, no one will be born.
And without a number, no one can fall in love,or
To make love
To procreate..
To work
To eat, shit or shag
Identity cards, all inclusive
For everyone.
No duplicates, please.

No more duplicate Indians,
All original one will have a number…
Number with the biometry
With a billion numbers
And a billion noses,
two billion eyes
Available online. everywhere...
From Kanyakumari to Kashmir
From Aizwal to Ahemedbad.


Henceforth, everyone will be online
Everything will be online
Food and fuel on line..
Hospital on line
Schools online
Poverty online
Happiness online
Economy online
Trees and forests online
And rivers , valleys and mountains,
will also be available online...

Eat, shit or procreate online....
Online orgasm for everyone...with a number.
Socialism, democracy....secularism online...
And "civil society" "civil service"...all online..

Let the hungry die....
First let them have numbers....
Each dead body can be identified- with a number
...easily online.
And each burial of hungry child-
Can be now marked....
Each raped woman...can have a real number....
Dalits can have a number too...
for being discriminated.
Adivasis can have a number...
for being displaced!
Muslim, Christian, Sikh,
Mizo, Nagas..
All need numbers
To be easily identified …

Burning can be planned online..
Burials can be planned online...

Everyone with a number..
Better have a number…!
Be patriotic.
Be Indian.
Buy a number please.
No duplicate in this great Nation.

Mahatma will get a new number
With retrospective effect.
Mother Theresa may apply for one.

All pregnant women can apply
for a new number
for the forthcoming child.
Only those with numbers can father a child


A child with an empty belly..
Can die in peace
In this Republic of Hunger.

Jai Ho. Jai Ho.
Hamara Bhart Mahan.
No duplicate please!!!

Transformative Civil Societies

John Samuel


Civil Society is not a colourless or odorless gas. Civil Society is not an abstract academic concept anymore. Civil Societies do have coloures and cultures, contexts and contours, gender and grounds, and politics and passion.


Civil Society is plural. The theory and practice of civil society is plural- in terms of its concept, genealogy, history, form, locations, content and politics. The validity of civil society is partly due to this plurality at its very conceptual core and the sheer diversity in its praxis. There is not one single theory of civil society. There are many. There is not one single politics of civil society. There are many. This fluidity and fuzziness of the term is what paradoxically makes it significant. Civil Society signifies diverse arena and spaces of contested power-relationships. So the contradictions and contestations of power, culture and economy get reflected in the civil society discourse of a particular country or political context. In South Asia, civil society may reflect the feudal and post-colonial tendencies within its own power-spaces. In many countries of Africa, the community differentiations based on tribal identities may influence and shape civil society discourses as well.

Civil society has now become an arena of praxis- wherein theory is continually negotiated and re-negotiated based on the evolving practice in multiple social, economic and cultural contexts. This dynamism, pluralism and diversity to a large extent shape the emerging civil society discourse across the world. Hence, it is indeed difficult to ignore the civil society discourse –for such a discourse is one of the most crucial elements in the new political and policy paradigm of a world in the midst of profound political, technological, economic, cultural and social transformations. The idea of civil society is used for political subversion, political reform as well political transformation. Proponents of various ideological streams from conservatism to neo-liberalism and from liberal reformists to radical socialists have been using the idea and practice of civil society to legitimize their respective political projects and programmes.

This note seeks to stress the validity of civil society as a web of diverse spaces and linkages for transformative politics to promote human rights as well ecological, economic and social justice. The transformative civil society discourse is deeply political- a politics of people that seeks to challenge unjust and unequal power-relationships; a politics that challenges all kinds of discriminations based on gender, cast, race and creed; and politics of citizens that seeks to restrain the unbridled powers of the state apparatus and market forces.

Though the term Civil Society has its pre-modern, modern and post-modern connotations in different social and political contexts, the idea of civil society has acquired new meaning and role in the changing political, social and economic contexts. There has been a series of serious critique of the very term Civil Society, particularly its dominant euro-centric political assumptions and conceptual genealogy. While the idea of Civil society played a key role in shaping the citizens politics against authoritarian governments in Latin America and Central Europe in the 1980s, Civil society as an idea was also used to create a subversive political and social conditions for a new hegemonic neo-liberal political and policy order.

So, many of the social activists in the global south were rather skeptical about the subversive content of civil society as a social and political legitimizing mechanism for the free market ideology. The theoretical and political assumptions behind the idea and practice of civil society in Europe and America evolved over a period of two hundred years of the formations of the nation-state and corollary political discourse. This made the idea of Civil Society valid and validated in such a socio-cultural context. However, there have been conceptual and political disconsonance when such a seemingly universal idea and practice of civil society was super-imposed on socio-political and historical contexts divergent from that of the European and American contexts. The universalization and valorization of the Euro-centric genealogy of civil society is that made it a highly contested concept and political project in the global south. Most of the countries that emerged out of the colonial domination and suppression have an entirely different cultural, religious, social and political context. The very political discourse and social contexts in many of the countries in the global south was shaped by the post-colonial international politics of influence through subversive ideas, aid and trade. During the cold-war period, the international political process was highly contested by the two global power-blocks. And during the post-cold war period, a set of new ideas and praxis replaced the cold-war international ideological paradigm. It is in such a context the born-again idea of civil society was challenged by many social movements and activists.

However, over a period of the last twenty years the very idea and practice of Civil Society evolved – and in many ways outgrew its dominant euro-centric ideological genealogy. The idea of civil society is now owned, reshaped and redefined through a diversity of praxis across the world- from a village in Africa or Asia to global arena. The idea of civil society is increasingly becoming a new metaphor for citizens’ mobilization and people’s struggle for human rights, ecological and socio-economic justice and democratization. The very fluidity and plurality of the idea of civil society ironically make it a broad arena of multiplicity of collective actions across the world. There is no longer one civil society or one civil society discourse. It is an arena of political contestation- and arena of countervailing power to seek accountability from the state as well as market. Civil society with all its diversity and chaos also become a metaphor for transformative politics- a politics that challenges injustice, discrimination and the monopoly of power of the state as well as that of the market. Such a civil society discourse- promoted by people’s movements, citizens networks, progressive non-governmental organizations, network of public intellectuals and media practitioners- seek to transform unjust power-relationships and to seek accountability from the governments and powerful trans-national and multinational corporations in the market place. Such a civil society discourse is local and global at the same time- because such discourse questions and seek to transform unjust power-relationships, discrimination and domination every where- from villages to the global arena; from the local self-government to powerful transnational business corporations or multilateral institutions.


The civil society discourse to a large extent emerged as a corollary discourse to the politics of the nation- state. The nature and character of the civil society in given context is negotiated through historical, cultural and social process and predominant power-paradigm within such a context. The predominant power paradigm and political process of a country is largely determined by the politics of the state. It is often the politics of the state that determine the character and content of democracy. Such state-centric power paradigm tends to be driven by the self-preserving nature of bureaucracy, control mechanism and coercive arms of the state. So even in the democratic political context, the politics of the state often make instrumental use of democratic forms- such as regular election, representative politics- without necessarily promoting the content, process and culture of democratization within the society. For example, a politically democratic country like India can have a political party system and society devoid of significant content and culture of democratization. It is in such a context, the political role of civil society becomes crucial as multiple process and spaces for substantive democratization of people and communities. From the perspective democratization, the idea of civil society signifies the notion of citizenship, the limits of state power and the regulation of market economies. Conceptually Civil Society is supposed to be a public sphere located between the state and market, strong enough to keep both the sate and market in check. Civil society as space for transformative politics is based on the idea of the freedom, dignity and sovereignty of people.


Civil society is about politics- politics of people, politics of communication, politics of campaign, politics of network and politics of knowledge. The politics of civil society is not derived from the power of one source or one apparatus. The very power of civil society is in its plural and diverse sources of power- a power of multiple voices, multiple locations and multiple perspectives- a plural source of countervailing power to restrain the monopoly of the state and that of the market.

The civil society discourse in the twenty first century is qualitatively different from that of the twentieth century or that of the post-cold war politics. Civil society is increasingly a coalescence of the local and global, real and virtual and south and north. There is a new sense of global solidarity movement for justice- though such an interconnected process is highly dispersed, poly-centric, and multi-locational. There is a new civil society discourse facilitated by the radical shifts in information and communication technology and the emergence of the new media. In many ways the new discourse of civil society is similar to that of the world wide web- beyond the conventional boarders of the nation-state, or the cultural boundaries. The Internet, global e-lists, social networking sites, you-tube and digital mobilization across the world would have been unimaginable twenty years ago. Today information and campaign process can reach out to millions of people with the single click of a browser. In many ways, it is the civil society action by those who are not active members of the political party that influenced the election of Barack Obama. For the first time in the political history, millions of young people – beyond the space of conventional political parties-got mobilized in the cyber space and they raised millions of dollars from ordinary people. So one can argue that the last America election was fundamentally different from the earlier elections because the civil society reclaimed the political spaces through new modes of mobilization- making use of technology, communication and new discourse on change.

So the critique of civil society should enable us to evolve new idea, new meaning and new praxis to create new poetry and politics: a politics of transformation based on the countervailing power of the people. Civil society as an arena may have to be redefined for inclusive participation, for multiple voices and for plurality of emancipatory politics. In most of the countries, civil society also connotes a new combination of middle class and media. This means there is less space for the voice of the marginalized and excluded – both in terms of socio-economic locations and geographical locations. Civil society is often seen and heard in the urban and digital spaces. This in a way limits the true potential of a new politics of civil society as transformative force. Civil society can be arena of transformation only when the poor, marginalized and excluded can claim such a space- beyond the state, political parties and market- to raise their voices, assert their rights and claim accountability. Civil society can become an important area of democratization when it becomes an arena of associations, voices, and collective advocacy and actions for public good, for participation and for human rights and justice.

Hence, we need to construct a new pluralistic history and politics of civil society based on an ethical and political perspective based on human rights, sustainable development, diversity, pluralism and justice. From such a perspective it is possible to locate new histories of civil society process beyond the European- American political and epistemological history. For example, the efforts of Kabir in India and various social and religious reform movements can be traced to the idea of countervailing power – beyond the dominant modes of power. The various social and political reform movements, for women’s rights, for inclusive participation, and for accountable governance in the 19the century in India can be seen as the emergence of a civil society discourses. The efforts of Brhamo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Servants of India society, and the early years of the Indian National Congress can be seen as civil society initiatives. The reform as well as transformative movements led by Raj Ram Mohan Roy, Birsa Munda, Mahatma Phule, Savitribhai Phule, Mahatma Gandhi, Aurbindo, Tagore, Ayyenkali Narayana Guru , Pandita Ramabhai and Ambedkar can also be located as civil society initiatives as they all helped to create a public sphere and sociopolitical arena beyond the state and the market. In fact, the early work of Gandhi in South Africa- Tolstoy farm- and then in India can be seen an effort to shape and create a new civil society politics. One can argue that at the core of Gandhian Praxis was civil society discourse- as he refused to be a part of formal political or institutional power. This is one of the reasons that Gandhian social and political praxis inspired much civil society discourse including the civil rights movement, led by Martin Luther King- in the USA. We need to reclaim the civil society – as an idea and as a praxis- to transform it in to an arena for transformative politics- for a politics of dissent, a politics of non-violent collective action, a politics of democratization and a politics to claim and reclaim voices, power and state- by the people, for the people and of the people.


If we consider civil society discourse as a pluralist network of citizens and associational spaces for social and political action, then one can begin to appreciate the contribution of such discourse in shaping and influencing the politics and policy process in many countries and the world. There are five specific areas where civil society discourse and initiatives made very important political and social contributions. These are : a) Women’s rights b) Ecological justice and Environment protection c) Human Rights of the Marginalized and excluded - to promote the rights of ethnic, religious, race, and sexual minorities d) movement for citizens participation and governance accountability and e) Resistance and protest against unjust economic globalization and unilateral militarization. In fact, even in these specific areas there is a multiplicity of civil society discourse. However, over a period of the last thirty years, if women’s rights and green politics are at the centre of all political and policy discourse, it is indeed due to the consistent mobilization and advocacy by thousands of organizations and millions of people across the world. On Feb 15, 2003, more than 11 million people across the world marched against the war in Iraq and unilateral militarization. In fact, the unprecedented global mobilization happened on the same days – largely due to the digital mobilization – and partly due to the rather spontaneous coordination process among social movements and civil society actors met during the world social forum in Porto Alegre in January 2003.


In the last twenty years most of the innovative policy framework and legislation happened due to the consistent campaign and advocacy by the civil society organizations. It is due to the people-centred advocacy, campaign and mobilizations by hundreds of civil society organizations in India that the government of India enacted the Right to Information, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Education, the new Act to stop domestic violence and the one for protecting the land rights of tribal communities. It is also due to efforts of women’s rights organization and civil society initiatives that women’s political participation the and the new bill to ensure 33% reservation for women in the parliament got in to the centre of political discourse in India.

In many countries of Asia and Africa, Civil Society discourse became a countervailing political process against authoritarian governments. This was evident in the citizens and civil society struggle against monarchy in Nepal and also authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world. In many countries of Latin America civil society became a common ground for diverse interests groups and political formations to act together to challenge the authoritarian regimes. In fact, civil society played a key role in shaping the political process in Brazil. Civil society became common grounds for social movements, progressive NGOs, progressive factions of the Church, trade unions and public intellectuals to work together for political and policy transformation. The world social forum process originated in Brazil partly due to these historical and political conditions. Such a civil society discourse sought to challenge unjust economic globalization and the unaccountable national governments. So the civil society discourse helped the transformation of the state power in Brazil.


With the advent of internet, digital mobilization and relatively cheap air travel, there is an increasing interconnectedness between the civil society initiatives and movements across the world. The unprecedented mobilization and campaign across the world for trade justice and fair trade – and against the unjust WTO regime demonstrated the power of citizen action and mobilization beyond the state and market. The diverse range of mobilization against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Cancun, and Hong Kong influence the political and policy choices of many countries and the G-20 process. The Jubilee campaign for cancelling the unjust debt of the poor countries attracted the support of millions of people both in rich countries and poor countries and in remote villages and megacities. The successful campaign against Land Mines proved to be another successful example of civil society mobilization and action across the world. World Social Forum emerged as an open-space and platform for exchange of ideas, coordination of action and collective envisioning – beyond the narrow ideological divided and old political divisions. The emergence of a global justice solidarity movement in many ways influenced the political process in many countries.


In the last fifteen years, there has been a resurgence of the political consciousness with in the civil society. A whole range of new associations, citizens’ formations, new social movements, knowledge-action network, policy advocacy groups emerged both at the national and international level. Such a process was partly due to the shift in the international politics- in the aftermath of the cold-war- and consequent shift in the aid- architecture- with a stress on local ownership for the development process. The new stress on Human Rights, in the aftermath of the Vienna Human Rights Summit in 199, gave new spaces and international legitimacy for new human rights movements, integrating the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. A series of United Nations Conference starting with the Rio Summit in 1992, created enabling global space for civil society process and organizations. The Vienna UN Human Rights Summit in 1993, the Beijing Summit in 1995 on Women’s Rights, the Copenhagen summit on Social Development in 1996 and the Durban Summit on Racism provided global platform for the civil society movements to advance new discourse on politics and public policy. The exchange of knowledge, linkages and resources began to create a new synergy between the countries and communities in the South as well as that of in the North. In fact, United Nations became a key mediating ground between the Civil Society and various Governments. Such a mediating role between the civil society and state provided new legitimacy and role for the United Nations. The new stress of human development, and human rights and global poverty, provided a legitimate space for global action and campaign for the civil society. There have been new technological and financial resources that helped international networking and a new trend of globalization from below. As the new hegemony of power politics driven by unilateral militaralism, conservative politics and neo-liberal policy paradigm began to dominate the world, the new social movements and consequent civil society process became an arena of a new politics of protest and resistance against unjust globalization. Such a new civil society process was driven by communities, communications and creativity. New modes of communications, networking, campaigning and mobilizations made the civil society discourse as one of the most influential political and policy discourse in the twenty first century.


There is a significant difference between the civil society discourse in the 1980s, 1990s and that of the last ten years. Unless we understand and appreciate the multiple political shifts at the national and international levels, it might be difficult to understand the consequent shifts in the practice and theory of civil society. In the 1980s, civil society was more of a conceptual tool to legitimize and to organize the protest movement against authoritarian governments in Latin America and Central Europe. In the 1990s, the term Civil Society has become a more of an instrument in new hegemony of policy and politics at the international level, supported by both aid and trade. However, in the last ten years, the idea of civil society got increasingly contextualized to become a plural arena of political praxis for transformative politics in multiple contexts. The old civil society discourse got submerged in to new movements for radical democratization, feminist politics, and ecological, social and economic justice. It is the new emerging discourse on civil society that seeks to address the issue of democratic deficit, and crisis of governance.


So it is important to reclaim civil societies- plural and diverse spaces for collective human action- as an arena of transformative politics. The reclaiming of civil societies would mean the reassertion of the dignity, sovereignty and human rights of all peoples. The ethics and politics of the idea of civil society need to be reclaimed to humanize the state, market and political process. There is a need to reclaim a new political consciousness driven by freedom- freedom from fear and freedom from want; freedom of association and freedom of beliefs. The idea of civil society needs to be reinforced by new civil value and virtues: values for equality and justice, values that would help us to fight all kinds of injustice and discriminations- based on gender, race, cast or creed. Civil society can be transformative when it can combine the Politics of Protest and Politics of Proposal. Civil Society will become an arena that can help to combine the Politics of People and Politics of Knowledge. Civil society becomes a transformative space when it can help to create the politics of dissent, politics of association and citizen action against monopoly of power and spaces for counter discourse and counter hegemony.

What Makes Change happen?

John Samuel

Only two things can change the World: Ideas and people’. Imaginative ideas and Inspired people together can make change happen in the world.

All other things are peripheral. Money or wealth or weapons can not change the world in the long run. If you have inspired people and imaginative ideas- everything else will follow.

You cannot kill an Idea; you can only challenge an idea. The moment you put an idea, it’s like a seed, it will come up in different forms. So you can challenge Marx, but you cannot kill Marxism, as an idea. Savarkar proposed Hindutva- you can not kill that idea; one can only challenge it. Ideas are more dangerous than anything else. Mussolini was more scared about the ideas of Antonio Gramsci. So Mussolini said: ‘his mind should stop working’. Mussolini said, ‘jailing him won’t help, his mind is more dangerous than his body’. Gramsci’s, Prison Notebooks are one of the best books in influencing social change and transforming power-relations.

Ideas are the most powerful weapons in the world. But, ideas become active, when people live with it and live to propel it, translate it and use those ideas as means to transform the society and world. Young people with ideas and ideals are the force, which can change the World. Ideas and Ideals create creative imagination. The best of the Dil( heart), Dimaag(mind) and Dum( Dynamism) are in and among the young people.

Every moment of life, you have to live and feel the life . Living is an art of feeling, thinking and doing- making a difference wherever you are. Living is also an art of unleashing your imagination and creativity – magic of discovering the world within you and around you.
Every human being does eat, shit and procreate, and life seems so simple!! That makes Life into such a monotonous routine of existence , without creative impulse or transformative potential.

Experience is very important. One should be able to feel, touch and smell with a sense of passion and intensity. Experience is one of the biggest sources of learning and inspiration. But the tragedy is that one is not even often aware about one’s own experience in a life of routine- devoid of the sense of curiosity and wonder. Skills and tools can be helpful. But a motivated and inspired person can learn any skill and develop appropriate tools.

What is the difference between human beings and animals? Human beings have creativity, community and ability to communicate. Human beings can have communion as well- a sense of sharing values, ethics, collective memory- a sense of belonging to each other- beyond the individual self. The creative and power instincts of human being propel us to give birth as well to kill, to create as well as to destroy, to imagine as well as to impose. How do we move beyond such basic human instincts to create and destroy to that of a transformative being: someone who can have self-awareness about her/his being, and generate creative work by realizing the belief and values through action and becoming a new being- sensitive and sensible to a larger world beyond one-self , our institutions and our immediate interests.

Human beings have vanities about power, they are full of vanities and these vanities of power are often built within the social system.

Ideas give rise to imagination and Imagination can propel new ideas. Courage of conviction in those ideas and ability to inspire , initiate and nurture young people , the rest will happen.

Knowledge is power. But Imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagination is the impulse to creativity. Human Creativity and Conviction are what make change happen. They together make the will act. They are the moving force behind history. All other things like wealth, weapons etc are mere enabling factors. Remember Confucius, Vedas, Buddha, Jesus, Prophet Mohammed, Newton, Marx, Einstein, or Gandhi influenced world more than the great warrior kings or the richest people.

As young people, you should dare to dream! You have to learn to dream about the society and you. You have to imagine that you can change the world. You need to nurture your critical self awareness and creative impulse. You have to believe in your ability to transform yourself and the world around you. You need to have the courage of conviction. Then, you can indeed change the world!

Making change happen is the most exciting thing in the world- a proof our living, a sign of our creative impulse, a responsibility to go beyond yourselves , to touch, feel and smell the world- to be an agent of transformation. Why not?

Our society is in full of contradictions, the society is yet very feudal, the power structure is still problematic based on caste, religion, and language. In the world of NGO’s also, who are the people who call the shots ? They are Urban, Upper Class, Upper Caste, and English speaking people . They come from elite institutions and privileged background. For many of them , NGOs are a more relaxed way of working , a bit of an alternative style, and a bit of do-good impulse; not necessarily means to challenge the status quo or transform the world. More often, it is the same class of people who take the leadership in top bureaucracy, corporate sector and NGO.

There is less opportunities and choices for rural youth, particularly women – with out adequate skills in English or the enabling kind of exposure. While many of the English speaking privileged class encourage the rural people and less privileged one’s to speak in local languages or Hindi, they unwittingly foreclose the possibility of further exposure or learning to such people. So often, those who speak or write Hindi ends up in a small organization or work at the district level and those who have access to language, knowledge and exposure end up leading the more privileged urban NGOs or INGOs.

Somehow there is indeed a language connotation to our power structure- that emerged out of the colonial process. It is also because of the diversity of India. English is the only connecting language across the middle class of India. So while it is good to know Tamil and Hindi, without communication skills in English, you may end up having less advantage. Hence , I used to insist every one to learn to write and speak in English. You need to go beyond your comfort zone to learn new things and new skills.

It is also important to truly respect diversity and pluralism wherever you are. It is equally important to stand up and speak out for those who are less privileged in a given situation. I tried to do that whenever there was an opportunity. Now Actionaid has an affirmative recruitment policy in many countries. Few years ago all leaders came from upper cast and upper class and majority religion. Now we have many senior leaders from dalit , tribal and minority back ground. We have more women in leadership. Unless we challenge ourselves, we can not change ourselves.

Perspective is another important force of change. Every one keeps interpreting the world around us with one perspective or to other. However, what you see depends on where you stand!

The mind can often end up rationalize everything as per the convenience. It can be used to rationalize Hitler or Stalin. The mind can also become very cynical. Such cynical rationalism can often be counter productive and dangerous.

Solidarity is shared sense of feeling- a sense of belonging to people and a sense of collective commitment. You can not derive sense of solidarity or courage of conviction from text books or from social theory. Unless, you feel about causes and consequence of injustice and poverty, it is difficult for one to act . Descartes wrote: 'I think therefore I am'. This is a problem Cartesian mode of thinking largely prevalent in the European world – making a distinction between mind and body, experience and reason etc .!

After spending a week in a remote village in a river island( Choar Mumtaz) in Bangladesh, I write down my experience( available on the blog: www.bodhigram.blogspot.com) . I ended that reflection with a counter point to the Cartesian mode: “ I feel therefore I am; I think therefore I do”

We need both poetry and politics for a new wave of change. We need political imagination as well as poetry of power and passion to transform the barren landscape of our thinking and action.

We need people, passion and politics to transform the world. We need to be aware about unjust power-relations operating within ourselves, around us and beyond us. Every person is unique. Every person counts. Every person can have immense potential. How do we connect with such unique potential of everyone- touch them, feel them and move with them- weaving a sense of shared value, genuinely concerned about everyone, and making waves of creative action : a movement of inspired and passionate people can change anything in this world. Gandhi helped it happen. Martin Luther did make it happen. Che inspired us to dream and act. Neruda wrote poetry to make politics happen within and beyond us. Why can't we?

Making change happen within one's self, around us and beyond us is the most exciting thing about life. Without a sense of change- life can be a monotonous burden- of imprisoned self. Freedom can only happen from within- when we feel free to fly beyond the self. Freedom is first about Being- discovering the spaces within and then beyond to create, to bridge, to connect, to communicate and to realize one's true potential. When each of us can discover our own potential, when each of us can believe that we together can make wonders, move mountains- then we can make Change happen.

If we can not make change happen deep within, then we can make change happen beyond. And human history teaches us about those who made destructive changes and those who made generative changes. We need to understand history , to make history. We need to envision, enable , educate and empower to make change happen. We need to feel inspired and empathetic to make change happen. When we truly believe in what we do; when we are willing to listen, learn and love- change begins to unfold with in you and me.

When we feel we are a part of movement in the long march of history of the world, we begin to believe in causes much bigger than oneself, causes much bigger than our own Institutions, causes much bigger than our little positions of power, causes much bigger than our own countries; causes big enough to inspire us, challenge us and transform us. Then change begins to happen.

And when we make change happen- changes that can outlive ourselves and our generation, and our organizations, then we make history. That is something exciting. So do not get stuck in positions of "power" for the sake of it. Do not get in to the rat race. Develop a sense of awareness to have Dreams much bigger than you, and your little positions of power or your organization. Do not go after temporal power to control or to acquire. Being is often more important than " Having".

Power becomes only meaningful when it is a responsibility to be creative and transformative- the power within each of us to discover the freedom within- a power to create a sense of freedom and joy around us. And all of us have that power deep within. We need to only discover the power within us- the powerful stream that come from the depth our soul. And let us realize the power of people and imaginative ideas for a better world, a justful tomorrow and a joyful world- a safer, greener and better planet that we can pass on to the next generation- to our children and grand children. A world where people can indeed smile and feel the joy of being in and enjoying true freedom. Then, WE CAN INDEED MAKE CHANGE HAPPEN.



(This is an Excerpt from the Interaction of Interns with John Samuel at the Conference Room, National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune).

Towards Just and Democratic Governance

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