Thoughts on Good Governance and Democracy are to seek how political power and institutions-formal and informal, national and international-shape human progress. And it is about what it will take for countries to establish democratic governance systems that advance the Good governance of all people-in a world where so many are left behind. Governance matters for Good governance because people everywhere want to be free to determine their destinies, express their views and participate in the decisions that shape their lives. These capabilities are just as important for Good governance-for expanding people’s choices as being able to read or enjoy good health. The world made dramatic progress in opening up governance systems and expanding political freedoms. Developing countries pursued democratization in the face of massive poverty and pervasive social and economic tensions. Many others have stalled between democracy and authoritarianism, with limited political freedoms and closed or dysfunctional Governance. Have become breeding grounds for extremism and violent conflict. Even where democratic institutions are firmly established, citizens often feel powerless to influence national policies. They and their governments also feel more subject to international forces that they have little capacity to control.

For Governance political institutions have to promote Good governance and safeguard the freedom and dignity of all people, and democracy must widen and deepen. Many developing countries are making progress on several fronts, particularly in achieving universal primary education and gender equality in access to education. But for Bangladesh the prospects are bleak. If progress continues at such a snail’s pace, it will take more than 130 years to rid people out of hunger. Two problems seem intractable. The first is income poverty. To halve the share of people living on $1 a day, optimistic estimates suggest that 5.7% annual growth in per capita incomes is needed in developing countries. But over the past 10 years the most populous developing countries have not grown at this rate. Indeed, many have suffered negative growth in recent years, and the share of their people in poverty has almost certainly increased. Most troubling, many of the countries least likely to achieve the goals are the world’s poorest the least developed countries.

Without a dramatic turn around there is a real possibility that a generation from now, world leaders will be setting the same targets again. These mixed prospects highlight a troubling paradox. The spread of democracy, the integration of national economies, revolutions in technology, all point to greater human freedom and greater potential for improving people’s lives. But in too many countries, freedom seems to be under ever-greater threat to Democracy. The world is more democratic than ever before, but of the 140 countries that holds multiparty elections only 80 with 55% of the world’s people claim to be democratic by one measure and 106 countries still limit important civil and political freedoms.

New technology and increasing economic integration are paving the way for truly global markets. But amid the wealth of new economic opportunities, 2.8 billion people still live on less that $ 2 a day. And in many parts of the lives of the poorest people are getting worse. Some argue that bridging the gulf between potential and reality is a matter of time and political will. For others the slow pace of change is not the problem-it is the basic direction. But on one point there is broad agreement: in a more interdependent world, governance and political institutions are even more central to Good governance. Around the world discussions on development are placing more emphasis on institutions and governance. These debates have focused on the effectiveness of public institutions and the rules for making markets work and promoting economic growth-from the professionalism and transparency of tax systems to the capacity of judicial systems to enforce commercial contracts. Such issues are important for Good governance. When institutions function badly, poor and vulnerable people tend to suffer most. Bud just as Good governance requires much more than having effective public institution. Good governance also requires fostering fair, account-able institutions that protect human rights and basic freedoms. It is not only about whether judges are trained, but whether they observe due process and are blind to differences of race and class. It is not only about whether schools are built, but whether students in poor districts are as well equipped as students in affluent areas. This remains relatively new territory for serious research and the links between political in situations and economic and social outcomes are not fully understood. This explores those links from the standpoint of advancing Good governance. It argues that countries can promote Good governance for all only when they have governance systems that are fully accountable to all people-and when all people can participate in the debates and decisions that shape their lives. Advancing Good governance requires governance that is democratic in both form and substance-for the people and by the people. Democratic governance is valuable in its own right. But it can also advance Good governance, for three reasons. First, enjoying political freedom and participating in the decisions that shape one’s life are fundamental human rights: they are part of Good governance in their won right. Democracy is the only political regime that guarantees political and civil freedoms and the right to participate-making democratic rules a good in itself. Second, democracy helps protect people from economic and political catastrophes such as famines and descents into chaos. Indeed, it can mean the difference between life and death. Democracies also contribute to political stability, providing open space for political opposition and handovers of power. Riots and demonstrations were more common in democracies but were much more destabilizing in dictatorships. Third, democratic governance can trigger a virtuous cycle of development-as political freedom empowers people to press for policies that expand social and economic opportunities, and as open debates help communities shape their priorities. Moves toward democratization and political opening have helped produce this kind of virtuous cycle, with a free press and civil society activism giving people new ways to participate in policy decisions and debates. The links between democracy and Good governance are not automatic: when a small elite dominates economic and political decisions the link between democracy and equity can be broken.

In recent years people around the world have fought for and won democracy in hopes of gaining political freedom-and social and economic opportunities. But many now feel that democracy has not delivered. During the 1990s income in-equality and poverty rose sharply sometimes at unprecedented rates. And despite more widespread democracy, the number of poor people continued to increase. When democratic governments do not respond to the needs of poor people, the public becomes more inclined to support authoritarian or populist leaders who claim that limiting civil liberties and political freedoms will accelerate economic growth and promote social progress and stability. High in come inequality and poverty go hand in hand with low public trust in political institutions and greater willingness to accept authoritarian rule and violations of human rights. Authoritarian leader promise well out comes and argues that democracy must be sacrificed for economic growth and social progress. But there is no evidence of such a trade off. Statistical studies find that neither authoritarianism nor democracy is a factor in determining either the rate of economic growth or how it is distributed.

Democracy that empowers people must be built-it cannot be imported. In many countries a central challenge for deepening democracy is building the key institutions of democratic governance:
· A system of representation, with well-functioning political parties and interest associations.
· An electoral system that guarantees free and fair elections as well as universal suffrage.
· A system of checks and balances based on the separation of powers, with independent judicial and legislative branches.
· A vibrant civil society, able to monitor government and private business-and provide alternative forms of political participation.
· A free, independent media.
· Effective civilian control over the military and other security forces.

These institutions come in many shapes and forms. Because the democracy a nation chooses to develop depends on its history and circumstances, countries will necessarily be differently democratic. But in all countries democracy is about much more than a single decision or hastily organized election. It requires a deeper process of political development to embed democratic values and culture in all parts of society-a process never formally completed. Building democratic institutions while achieving equitable social and economic development poses tensions. Granting all people formal political equality does not create an equal desire or capacity to participate in political processes-or an equal capacity to influence outcomes. Imbalances in resources and political power often subvert the principle of one person, one voice, and the purpose of democratic institutions. And judicial proceedings and regulatory institutions are undermined if elites dominate them at the expense of women, minorities and the powerless. One critical problem is money in Governance, which subverts democratic institutions when it exerts undue influence on who gets elected and what legislators vote for.
As campaign costs rise, so does the risk that business interests will disproportionately influence politicians. Countries have more stringent limits on corporate funding, similar patterns emerge in many other countries. In Bangladesh large corporations provided 80% of the funding for the major parties in 1996. Recent surveys found that people have more confidence in television than they do in political parties. Triggering a virtuous cycle for Good governance requires promoting democratic Governance. Promoting democratic Governance means expanding capabilities such as education, to enable people to play a more effective role in such Governance, and fostering the development of civil society groups and other informal institutions to help democratic institutions better represent the people. Over the past two decades there have been many new ways for people to participate in public debates and activities. Though membership has fallen in political parties, trade unions and other traditional vehicles for collective action, there has been an explosion in support for non-governmental organizations and other new civil society groups. Most developing countries have seen an even sharper increase in the number of domestic NGOs and non-profits: More than $20 billion in aid to Bangladesh had flown through international NGOs, reflecting and supporting an dramatic expansion in the scope and nature of NGO activities. In addition to advocating for and engaging in development projects, NGOs are taking more direct roles in local decision making and monitoring and are developing new, collaborative forms of governance.
Civil society groups do not fit easily into traditional models of governance and accountability, which is part of their value to democracies. But when such groups spring from agendas or use tactics that are contrary to democratic values, they can be both civil and “uncivil”, the rise of such groups poses challenges for truly democratic political engagement. There are no simple solutions to this problem. But many civil society groups recognize that they must be publicly accountable for their actions. NGOs should have adopted codes of conduct to promote effective self-regulation. The codes emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability-and the need for the NGOs to ensure that they truly represent the people whose lives they affect. A free, independent media is another crucial pillar of democracy. Around the world, restrictions remain on basic civil liberties-such as the rights to free speech, assembly and in formation. Few countries have freedom of in formation laws. But in many countries new press freedoms and technologies are enabling the media to contribute more to democratic Governance by opening public debates and exposing corruption and abuse.
Especially in developing countries, most ordinary citizens have many more sources of information to turn to than they did 10 years ago. And less of that information is subject to rigid state control. But to be plural and independent, the media must be free not only from state control but also from corporate and political pressures. Although market reforms and economic integration have reduced state ownership of the media, it has increased concentration in private ownership. A number of private media groups own 75% of daily newspapers, weekly magazines; accounting for three fourths of circulation. Commercial and political pressures always skew the playing field in the marketplace for ideas. But the answer to excessive corporate or political influence is not a return to strict regulation by the state. The media need to be free as well as accountable-which is why greater emphasis is being placed on high standards of professionalism and ethics. Journalists and the media are free only when they serve the public first, and the government or private shareholders second. A range of mechanisms can promote these goals without resorting to government controls, including self-regulation to government controls, including self-regulation through in dependent bodies, professional codes of ethics as well as training and raising awareness of journalists.
Establishing democratic control over security forces is another priority-otherwise, far from ensuring personal security, security forces actively undermine them. Popular disillusionment is not the only problem facing the world democracies. In many an even greater obstacle is the extensive power of the military, police and intelligence services-not to mention warlords, paramilitary groups and private security companies. Elected governments have undermined democracy and personal security by using parts of the security sector for their own ends. When order breaks down in a country, poor people usually suffer first and most. All too often, violence against civilians emanates from forces under government control. Undemocratic governance of security forces can also distort security priorities. Many governments continue to militarize their police forces, blurring their distinction with the military, or seriously over-fund them. Without democratic civil control over security forces-including an effective, even-handed national police force, governments cannot guarantee people’s safety and security, and Good governance is severely held back. Relations between civilians and security forces rarely measure up to the ideal even in long standing democracies. Success in this area can contribute to the broader process of strengthening democratic institutions and Governance. It can also promote external peace and stability, because wars between democratic countries are quite rare. Global inter-dependence also calls for more participation and accountability in global decision making. Empowering people to influence decisions that affect their lives and hold their rulers accountable are no longer just a national issue. In an integrated world these democratic principles have a global rules and actors often affect people’s lives as much as national ones. Efforts to build more inclusive, accountable governance face two main challenges. The first is increasing pluralism: expanding the space for groups outside formal state institutions to participate in decision making, particularly in developing mechanisms to change the behavior of privet corporations, the second is increasing participation and accountability in multilateral institutions to give developing countries al larger role. Through a series of high profile campaigns, civil society movements have been promoting pluralism. New forms of collaboration between civil society groups have also aided increased pluralism in Governance. Increasing participation and accountability in multilateral institutions. Though the emergence of a civil society has created opportunities to deepen democracy at the national level, existing national institutions need reform. Developing countries should be given a stronger voice in their operations. Given their enormous-and growing-influence, these institutions-and growing influence, these institutions should also be held more accountable for their policies and actions.
Consider the World Trade Organization. Every member country has a seat and a vote, which is very democratic. But actual decision-making occurs by consensus, heavily influenced by the largest and richest countries. The imbalance in developing country participation is also evident in global civil society movements. Of the 738 NGOs accredited to the WTO’s 1999 ministerial conference in Seattle, Washington 87% were from industrial countries. The democratic deficit in international organizations is unavoidable because people do not directly elect their representatives to the WTO, IMF, World Bank or UN Security Council. It is perhaps no coincidence that the more representative international institutions, such as the UN Economic and Social Council and the Un General Assembly, are also considered the least powerful. The reality is that powerful countries-crucial to the success of an international institution-tend to gravitate towards institutions that give them the most influence. And they take their power with them: whether it is to the WTO’s “green room” meetings or the meetings of the IMF executive board. Efforts to enhance the representations of developing countries must take into account these basic realities.
Various commissions, think tanks and civil society organizations have also recommended increasing transparency by, for example, publishing decisions made by the executive boards of the major international financial institutions and making WTO decision-making more inclusive and trans-parent. In recent years the IMF, World Bank and United Nations have made important efforts to become more open and transparent. But there continues to be strong pressure to extend democratic principles to such organizations, particularly since many have recently become so such more deeply involved in national economic, political and social policies. The deeper is their intervention in sensitive governance reforms in developing countries, the greater in the need for international organizations to be open and accountable. The traditional argument against such reforms is that they would make decision-making clumsy and unworkable. But against this must be set the realities of a more integrated world. Whether the goal is peace, economic growth or environmental sustainability, international efforts to promote change do not work if national actors feel excluded. Increasingly, the leading global powers may recognize that a widespread sense of exclusion and powerlessness in developing countries can threaten economic growth and security in industrial countries as well as developing. An abiding lesson of the past decade is that national political institutions are not keeping pace with the governance challenges of a more interdependent world. As new democracies struggle to lay the foundations of democratic governance, new forces and institutions are exerting powerful influences on people’s lives. And new types of conflicts are proliferating within and between countries.
The need to act is clear. Still needed is the will to act in ways that cultivate democracy, advance development and expand human freedoms around the world. Good governance is about people, about expanding their choices to lead lives they value. Whether they contribute to Good governance in the 21st century will depend on whether they expand people’s choices, whether they help create an environment for people to develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives. Fundamental to enlarging human choices is building human capabilities is the range of things that people can do or be. The most basic capabilities for Good governance are leading a long and healthy life, being educated, having access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living and being able to participate in the life of one’s community. People’s dignity also requires that they are free and able to participate in the formation and stewardship of the rules and institutions that governs them. A poor man who cannot afford to send his children to school, but must send them to work in the fields, is lacking in Good governance, so is a wealthy educated woman whose gender excludes her from voting in elections. Thus, because of population growth, the number of poor people in the region has increased. Progress on political freedoms has also been uneven. The spread of democratization appears to have stalled, with many countries failing to consolidate and deepen the first steps towards democracy and several slipping back into authoritarianism. The slogan of the political parties, “We will spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms,” has remained ever as ever.
Political participation and freedom are fundamental parts of Good governance, but true democratization means more than elections. It requires the consolidation of democratic institutions and the strengthening of democratic practices, with democratic values and norms embedded in all parts of society. One-party states have allowed elections but ended up permitting only limited opening for political competition. Most of these “limited” democracies suffer from shallow political participation, where citizens have little trust in their governments and are disaffected from polities, or the countries are dominated by a single powerful party or group despite formal elections.

Democratic political participation requires more than elections for governments-truly democratic Governance requires civil and political rights provide the space for effective participation. Upholding human rights is crucial for guaranteeing people’s well-being and securing a humane and non-discriminatory society-and for enabling an active and engaged citizenry. Freedoms of association and assembly, of expression and conscience, as laid out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are fundamental to political participation. A free and active press is particularly important for the creation and consolidation of democracy. In addition to civil and political rights, equitable opportunities for participation are crucial to democratic Governance. But around the world, women are seriously under-represented in domestic Governance, accounting for only 14% of national parliamentarians. There is little difference between industrial and developing countries. Speaking the truth, industrial countries are far more advanced in women repression. They hide their repression like expert hypocrites under loud voices and pointing fingers at the poorer countries.

At the UN General Assembly in 2000, heads of state and government took stock of the gross inequalities in Good governance worldwide and recognized “their collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level.” In addition to declaring their support for freedom, democracy and human rights, they set eight goals for development and poverty eradication, to be achieved by 2015.
· Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
· Achieve universal primary education.
· Promote gender equality and empower women.
· Reduce child mortality.
· Improve maternal health.
· Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
· Ensure environmental sustainability.
· Develop a global partnership for development.
Most of the Millennium Development Goals have quantifiable, monitor able targets to measure progress against standards set by the international community. Lack of data makes it difficult to assess progress on the goal of halving income poverty. But slow growth in average incomes indicates that many countries will have to struggle to achieve the goal. Countries have come closer to some goals than others. Many developing countries have already achieved or are on track to achieve universal primary education and gender equity in education. Given the importance of education to so many other areas of development, this bodes well for accelerating progress towards the other goals are not on track to halve hunger improved water source. Child mortality: people are not on track to achieve the goal. A goal that cannot be monitored be met or missed-and one of the most startling conclusions is the lack of date. The targets for poverty, HIV/AIDS and maternal mortality can not be monitored. The number of extremely poor people dropped only slightly.
The level of inequality in Bangladesh is grotesque. But trends over recent decades are ambiguous. The range of economic performance across regions means that inequality has increased between regions. Comparisons give an in-complete picture. When considering Good governance, within-country inequality must be taken into account because simple comparisons of per capita GDP assume that everyone in a country has the same income. Data on within-country inequality, based on household surveys, are often not comparable across countries or over time, so conclusions must be tentative. Still, reasonable estimates can be made, and studies have found interesting results. Long-term trends in interpersonal in-equality show that Bangladesh has become much more unequal. Although it may be difficult to distinguish clear trends in inequality in recent decades, its level is extremely high-a cause for considerable concern. The most recent available estimates are for 1993, but stagnation in the poorest countries and robust growth in many of the richest imply that these are unlikely to have improved. The Bangladesh richest 01percent of people receive as much income as the poorest 87%. The income of the richest 5000 is equal to that of almost the entire people of the country.
The poorest people in richest group have much higher incomes than the richest in the poor people. As a country gets richer, its inhabitants require more expensive goods and services to take part in normal life. Children may be unable to join in classroom conversations if their parents do not own a television; a construction worker may be unable to get work without a car. Such goods, once luxuries, become necessities as they proliferate throughout society. So, even in Bangladesh with no absolute income poverty, relative income poverty lead to absolute poverty in important dimensions of Good governance such as education, self-respect or the ability to get works. This was achieved primarily through fiscal policy and social transfers indicating that with political will, nothing is inevitable about inequality increasing with rising incomes. Children suffer doubly from hunger: it affects their daily lives and has devastating consequences for their future mental and physical health. A rough indication of how countries are moving towards halving hunger by 2015 comes from changes in the number of malnourished people-a less precise indicator of hunger than child malnutrition rates, based on national food availability and estimated distribution. While the proportion of hungry people has been declining, Bangladesh’s booming population means that the number of malnourished people has not been falling fast enough.
Education is important in its own right and has strong spillover benefits to mortality rates, income and even social cohesion. Many countries have good prospects for achieving universal primary education. But there in little middle ground: most of those not on track to achieve the goal are far behind or have worsening primary enrollments. Enrolling children in primary school is only half the battle, because it is meaningful only if they complete if-which requires that they and their families be able to resist the pressures of forgone income and work in the home. One of the most important out comes of primary education is literacy. And literacy rates are slow to change, reflecting the education of previous generations of children and the history of school enrolment. The concept of functional illiteracy describes the inability to understand and use common channels of communication and information in an every day context, from newspapers and books to pamphlets and instructions on medicine bottles. The Millennium Development Goal for gender equality in education responds to dramatic gender disparities in Bangladesh. In many developing countries, girls have no disadvantage or even a small advantage. The world is still a long way from achieving equal rights and opportunities between females and males. Education is just one aspect of Good governance in which there is discrimination between the sexes. Around the world, women still earn only around 75% as much as men. Domestic violence against women is common in Bangladesh. Worse outcomes for women in many aspects of Good governance result from the fact that their voices have less impact than men’s in the decisions that shape their lives. This in equality in empowerment is partly captured by the gender empowerment measure (GEM), introduced to help assess gender inequality in economic and political opportunities. While gender gaps in education are large in some countries and nonexistent in others, wealth gaps exist the world over. Such wealth gaps perpetuate the cycle of poverty: those born poor are likely to die poor. One cause of such gaps is that in many countries, public spending on education is skewed towards the rich. Even when public spending is distributed more equitably, rich parents can buy a far better education for their children at private schools.
Good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development. Around the world, more people are recognizing that governance matters for development that institutions, rules and political processes play a big role in whether economies grow, whether children go to school, whether Good governance moves forward or back. So, promoting Good governance is not just a social, economic and technological challenge: it is also an institutional and political challenge. Accompanying this new consensus is a growing conviction that many persistent development problems reflect failures of governance. Studies in a range of countries and regions hold weak governance responsible for persistent poverty and lagging development. The governance crisis is evident in widespread corruption, inefficient public services and a host of other failures. These studies have also shown what poor governance means for ordinary citizens-schools without teachers, courts without justice, local bureau crate demanding bribes at every turn. There is no single answer to this question. But much of the recent debate has focused on what makes institutions and rules more effective, including transparency, participation, responsiveness, accountability and the rule of law. All are important for Good governance-especially since ineffective institutions usually cause the most harms to poor and vulnerable people. But just as Good governance is about much more than growth in national incomes, governance for Good governance is about much more than effective institutions and rules. For three reasons, is must also be concerned with whether institutions and rules are fair-and whether all people have a say in how they operate:
· Participating in the rules and institutions that shape one’s community is a basic human right and part of Good governance.
· More inclusive governance can be more effective. When local people are consulted about the location of a new health clinic, for example, there is a better chance it will be built in the right place.
· More participatory governance also can be more equitable. Much is known about the economic and social policies that help eradicate poverty and promote more inclusive growth. But few countries pursue such policies vigorously, often because the potential beneficiaries lack political power and their interests are not fully represented in policy decisions.
Governance for Good governance is partly about having efficient institutions and rules that promote development by making markets work and ensuring that public services live up to their name. Form the Good governance perspective, good governance is democratic governance. Democratic governance means that:
· People’s human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected, allowing them to live with dignity.
· People have a say in decisions that affect their lives.
· People can hold decision makers accountable.
· Inclusive and fair rules, institutions and practices govern social interactions.
· Women are equal partners with men in private and public spheres of life and decision-making.
· People are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or any other attribute.
· The needs of future generations are reflected in current policies.
· Economic and social policies are responsive to people’s needs and aspirations.
· Economic and social policies aim at eradicating poverty and expanding the choices that all people have in their lives.
But it is also about protecting human rights, promoting wider participation in the institutions and rules that affect people’s lives and achieving more equitable economic and social outcomes. Thus governance for Good governance is concerned not just with efficient, equitable outcomes but also with fair processes. Governance for Good governance must be democratic in substance and in form by the people and for the people. Political freedom and participation are part of Good governance, both as development goals in their own right and as means for advancing Good governance. Political freedom and the ability to participate in the life of one’s community are capabilities that are as important for Good governance as being able to read and write and being in good health. People without political freedom-such as being able to join association s and to from and express opinions have far fewer choices in life. And being able to participate in the life of one’s community commanding the respect of others and having a say in communal decisions is fundamental to human existence. That political freedom and participation are crucial to Good governance is not always well understood. Indeed, there is a widespread misperception that Good governance is only about economic and social outcomes such as reducing
Respect for human dignity implies commitment to creating conditions under which individuals can develop a sense of self-worth and security. True dignity comes with an assurance of one’s ability to rise to the challenges of the human situation. Such assurance is unlikely to be fostered in people who have to live with the threat of violence and injustice, with bad governance and instability or with poverty and disease. Eradicating these threats must be the aim of those who recognize the sanctity of human dignity and of those who strive to promote Good governance. Development as growth, advancement and the realization of potential depends on available resources-and no resource is more potent than people empowered by confidence in their value as human beings. The concept of Good governance is no longer new. But some analysts still consider its aspirations bold and daring some might say overwhelming and foolhardy. The problems are innumerable, forever changing and forever the same-a complex, fluid spectrum of social, economic and political issues that is impossible to grasp entirely. That is defies delimitation is the core of the challenge posed by the task of Good governance. It demands constant effort and capacity for rethinking, flexibility and fast reactions. The process of Good governance calls for human resolve and ingenuity. Hopeless, helpless people stripped of their dignity are hardly capable of such activities. And so we return to the link between Good governance and human dignity. Good governance encompasses all aspects of human existence. It is generally accepted that its scope includes political and social rights as well as economic ones-but the different rights are not always given the same weigh. for example, some people still claim that humanitarian aid and economic assistance cannot wait for political and social progress. This insidious idea creates dissonance between complementary requirements. If the people that aid targets are not empowered, it cannot achieve more than a very limited, very short-term alleviation of problems rooted in long-standing social and political ills. After all, Good governance is not intended to produce impotent objects of charity. Merely providing them with a certain material sufficiency is not enough to win them over to peace and unity. Their potential for Good governance has to be realized and their human dignity respected so that they can gain the skills and confidence to build a world strong and prosperous in harmonious diversity. Though these are important for Good governance, its aim is much broader-to promotes the freedom, well being and dignity of people everywhere. Economic growth of the Good governance index (HDI)-itself only a partial measure of the economic and social dimensions of Good governance-has contributed to this misperception because it leaves out so many aspects of Good governance.
As the first Good governance Repot said in 1990, “People are the real wealth of a nation.”3 People are not only the beneficiaries of economic and social progress, the are also its agents, both as individuals and both as individuals and by making common causes with others. That are one-reason strategies for promoting Good governance having traditionally emphasized investing in education and health and promoting equitable economic growth. These are two pillars of development because they mobilize individual agency by strengthening productive capacities. a third pillar of a 21st century Good governance strategy: promoting participation promotes collective agency as well as individual agency-important because collective action through social and political movements has often been a motor of progress for issues central to Good governance: protecting the environment promoting gender equality, fostering human rights. In addition, participation and other Good governance gains can be mutually reinforcing. Political freedom empowers people to claim their economic and social rights, while education increases their ability to demand economic and social policies that respond to their priorities.
Putting participation at the heart of Good governance strategies raises a question about the scope of Good governance. Good governance is certainly broader than education and health. Many other capabilities are also important in expanding human choices. But public policy is about setting priorities. And the Good governance approach requires deciding which capabilities are most important for public policy. The HDI has reinforced the narrow, oversimplified interpretation of the Good governance concept as being only about expanding education, health and decent living standards. This has obscured the broader, more complex concept of Good governance as the expansion of capabilities that widen people’s choices to lead lives that they value. Despite careful efforts to explain that the concept is broader than the measure, Good governance continues to be identified with the HDI-while political freedoms, participating in the life of one’s community and physical security are often overlooked. But such capabilities are as universal and fundamental as being able to read or to enjoy good health. All people value them and without them other choices are foreclosed. They are not included in the HDI because they are difficult to measure appropriately, not because they are any less important to Good governance must be universally valued by people the world over. Second, it must be fundamental in the sense that the lack of it would close off many options in life. Other than that, the basic concept o Good governance has remained open-ended. Good governance strategies emphasized the need to reallocate public investments in favor of Good governance priorities, especially the two pulsars of expanding primary health care and education and promoting pro-poor growth. Changes in the world have shifted Good governance priorities and made political freedom, participation and collective action much more important as public policy issues. Alongside the economic entrepreneurship that drives markets, social entrepreneurship now drives policy debates on issues that matter for people. In addition, consensus is emerging on the importance of collective action by people and civil society groups in shaping the course of Good governance. Other capabilities might be considered important today-such as personal security or the capability to be free from physical danger or violence.
Democratic principles follow naturally and inescapably from this vision of Good governance. The word democracy, from the Greek, means “rule by the people”. It sums up well the Good governance approach to governance because it expresses the idea that people come first: governance must conform to the needs of people, not vice versa. Whether there can be such a thing as “ will of the people” in a world with disparate and competing interests, the basic democratic principle-of the equal concern for all people in the formation of governance structures-captures a key part of what Good governance should be about. The democratic system of voting in elections adds another crucial element of governance from a Good governance standpoint, because elections are the paradigm of enforceable accountability. When a government fails to live up to the needs and desires of the people the people can throw it out of office. No form of accountability is more direct. There is also no more egalitarian form of participation. The principle of” one person, one vote” gives every individual an equal say in the choice of government-in theory if not in practice. Other forms of participation can also be important for ensuring the accountability of state and non-state actors when, for one reason or another, the ballot box fails to do the job. But there is always the risk that particular groups and interests will wield undue influence, as those with more resources, or simply more determination, impose their views.
It would be a mistake to equate democracy with regular election and to fall into the fallacy of “electoralism”. Some analysts consider the mare fact of elections a sufficient condition for fair and free elections are regularly held all other democratic institutions and practice will naturally follow. But democracy also requires functional institutions. It requires a legislature that represents the people, not one controlled by the president, Prime Minister, bureaucrats or the military. It requires an independent judiciary that enforces the rule of law with equal concern for all people. It requires well-functioning political parties and electoral systems. It requires security forces that are professional, politically neutral and serve the needs of people. It requires security forces that are professional, politically neutral and serve the needs of people. It requires an accessible media that is free, independent and unbiased, not one controlled by the state or by corporate interests. And it requires a vibrant civil society, one that can play a watchdog role on government and interest groups-and provide alternative forms of political participation. These institutions, underpinned by democratic values and respect for human rights, provide checks and balances against the risks of tyranny-and of populism, because in democracies populist politicians can mobilize support by using propaganda and appeals to racism and other forms of intolerance.
In democratic societies people participate in the public sphere in many ways-debating issues with friends and neighbors, writing to newspapers on the rights and wrongs of government policies, marching in protests, becoming members of political parties or trade unions-giving them a say in the decisions that affect their lives. Participation involves engaging in deliberative processes that can bring people’s concerns to the fore. Open space for free political debate and the diverse ways in which people can express their views are the essence of democratic life and are what make decision making work in democracies. In representative systems of government, decision-making is delegated to officials. But informed decisions require input from the people affected by them and cannot rely solely on “expert knowledge”. Democracies take different shapes and forms-because political systems vary, they may be “differently democratic” on many fronts. For the world’s parliamentarians the essence of democracy lies in its basic principles. It is the only political regime compatible with Good governance in its deepest sense, because in democracy political power is authorized and controlled by the people over whom it is exercise. The most benign dictatorship imaginable would not be compatible with Good governance because Good governance has to be fully owned. Democracy is also the only political regime that respects open contests for power and is consistent with the respect and promotion of all human right-civil, cultural, economic, political and social.
Democracy is a universally recognized ideal, based on values common to people everywhere regardless of cultural, political, social or economic differences. As an ideal, democracy aims to protect and promote the dignity and fundamental rights of the individual, instill social justice and foster economic and social development. Democracy is a political system that enables people to freely choose an effective, honest, transparent and accountable government. Democracy is based on two core principles: participation and accountability. Everyone has the right to participate in the management of public affairs. Like-wise, everyone has the right to access in-formation on government activities, to petition government and to week redress through impartial administrative and judicial mechanisms. Genuine democracy presupposes a genuine partnership between men and women in conducting the affairs of society. Democracy is also inseparable from human rights and founded on the primacy of the law, for which judicial institutions and independent, impartial, effective oversight mechanisms are the guarantors. A parliament representing all parts of society is essential. It must be endowed with institutional powers and practical means to express the will of the people be legislating and overseeing government action. A key feature of the exercise of democracy is holding free, fair regular elections based on universal, equal, secret suffrage.
An active civil society is also essential. The capacity and willingness of citizens to influence the governance of their societies should not the taken for granted, and is necessary to develop conditions conducive to the genuine exercise of participatory rights. Society must be committed to meeting the basic needs of the most disadvantaged groups to ensure their participation in the workings of the democracy. Indeed, the institutions and processes essential to any democracy must include the participation of all members of society. They must defend diversity, pluralism and the right to be different within a tolerant society. Democracy must also be recognized as an international principle, applicable to international organizations and to states in their international relations. Democracy is always a work in progress, a state or condition constantly perfectible. Sustaining democracy means nurturing and reinforcing a democratic culture through all the means that education has at its disposal. Some researchers argue that democracies are better guarantors of property rights, than no democracies and that enforcing property rights and contracts is essential for investment and growth. Democracies also appear to be better at managing and consolidating economic reforms, because democracies are better at winning the support of groups that lose out from reforms. Democracy increases human capital accumulation and lowers income inequality, increasing growth, but it also lowers physical capital accumulation and raises government consumption, and raises government consumption. One striking finding is that fertility rates are significantly lower in democracies at all income levels, and they go up and down as country transition between dictatorships and democracies. This has strong implications for women’s well being. Even if democracy has no effect on aggregate GDP growth, in may affect per capita GDP growth. Another robust finding is that while the economic performance of dictatorships varies from terrible to excellent, democracies tend to cluster in the middle. No democracy has ever performed as badly as the worst dictatorships. The same is true for poverty reduction. Thus democracy appears to prevent the worst outcomes, even if it does not guarantee the best ones.
Modernization theory holds that the conversion to democracy is an inevitable result of economic development, making richer countries more likely to transition to democracy. But the evidence does not support this: middle-income countries have been more likely than poor or rich countries to move from dictatorships to democracies, the level of economic development has no significant effect on the rate of change to democracy for any of seven measures of democracy. Democracy expands political freedom, a desirable out come in itself. But democratic institutions and processes can also contribute to development, especially Good governance. Competition for political power through elections and other features of democracy makes politicians more likely to respond to people’s needs and aspirations. It can also help manage conflict and promote stability.
In democracies people have a voice underpinned by freedom of speech and thought, freedom of information, free and independent media and open political debate-that allows them to be heard in public policy-making. Public pressure can influence the decisions and actions of public officials as well as private agents, as with environmental pollution or abusive labor practices. These democratic processes are clearly related to three aspects of development. First, democracies are better than authoritarian regimes at managing conflicts, because the political space and the institutions that provide for open contests give opponents hope that change is possible without destroying the system. Socio-political unrest and handovers of power occur more often in democracies than in dictatorships, but they do not disrupt development. Democracies experienced twice as many riots and demonstrations and three times as many labor strikes. But such events as well as changes in government-did not slow economic growth in democracies. Democracies can mitigate internal conflicts so that they do not develop into political crises and economic turmoil. Second, democracies are better at avoiding catastrophes and at managing sudden downturns that threaten human survival. As Amartya Sen has argued, democratic institutions and processes provide strong incentives for governments to prevent famines. Without opposition parties, uncensored public criticism and the threat of being thrown out of office, rulers can act with impunity. Without a free press, the suffering from famine in isolated rural areas can be invisible to rulers and to the public. “Famines kill millions of people in different countries of the would, but they don’t kill the rulers, the kings and the presidents, the bureaucrats and the bosses, the military leaders and the commanders never are famine victims.” Politics are incentives in democracies also seem to help societies avoid other disasters, especially economic ruin and the collapse of development. The worst economic crises in democracies have been much less severe than the worst under dictatorships. Third, democracies help spread the word about critical health issues, such as the negative implications for women of a large number of births, the benefits of breast feeding and the dangers of unprotected sex in the context of HIV/AIDS. In these areas open dialogue and public debate can disseminate information and influence behavior. Free, open public debates are the cornerstone of what Amartya Sen calls the “constructive role” that democracies can play in promoting development.
When more than growth is considered, democratic institutions and processes contribute to development. Social injustices are widespread in democratic and authoritarian regimes alike, whether deliberate or otherwise in the allocation of public services or in discrimination against ethnic minorities, women the elderly and others continues even in long established democracies, as. Political incentives to respond to the needs of ordinary people may be offset by incentives to respond to the demands of the powerful or the wealthy. Much is known about how to promote equitable development that benefits poor people: widening access to credit, reforming land ownership, investing in basic social services for all, promoting the informal sector, following sound macroeconomic policies. But too often such policies are not adopted because of systematic biases that protect the interests of elites. Around the world, public spending is often skewed in favor of rich people. Moreover, taxation and spending policies are not more progressive in the countries with the highest income inequalities. Bangladesh have huge, often growing inequalities in income, wealth, social advantage and power. So, while democracy can promote equitable development, the goals of democracy and equity should be considered largely independent with both requiring dedicated effort and political will. Democracy does not automatically secure equitable social and economic development, but poverty does not prevent democracy from taking root. Democracy has intrinsic value for Good governance because it has strong links to political and civil freedoms and can contribute to social and economic development. But these links are not automatic, and strengthening them is the challenge of democratic governance-making democratic institution serve Good governance. Democracy and Good governance have something else in common. They are both more a journey than a destination, a promise rather than a list. Societies can be more or less democratic, just as people can have broader or more constrained choices to lead lives they value. But there is no defined end point. No society is ever completely democratic or fully developed. What matters is moving forward, and not slipping back.
People everywhere want to determine their destiny. The kind of democracy they choose need not follow a particular model. The model must be adapted to local circumstances and history. But everywhere, democracy requires a long process of political development. It needs basic institutions, formal and informal, of the state and outside it. It will not thrive without the spread of democratic culture-of values and principles that guide the behavior of individuals and groups. Threats to democracy come not only from political parties that are personalized and unable to represent people, but also from intolerance, extremism and a lack of respect for human rights and human dignity. Priorities for advancing democratic principles vary according to the social context, just as priorities for Good governance vary over time and across communities. The promise of democratic governance in a 21st century world can not depend simply on making state institutions function better. The nation-state is still a powerful force shaping individual lives, and in most cases it is the most important. As people’s lives become more interdependent, democratic principles of participation and equal concern for al must be reflected in the way that these new actors structure their institutions and in the way that rules are formulated and implemented. Democratic governance in this fast changing environment is more than people having the right to vote. It must be about strengthening democratic institutions so that they keep pace with the changing distribution of economic and political power. And it must be about promoting democratic Governance that make participation and public accountability possible even when the relevant power and processes lie outside the for mal institutions of the state.
In earlier times there were lengthy discussions on whether one country or another was yet “fit for democracy”. That changed only recently with the recognition that the question was itself wrong-beaded: a country does not have to be judged fit democracy, rather it has to become fit through democracy. This is a truly momentous change. But the recent mixed experience with democracy in these countries and around the world-shows that the process of deepening democracy and making it works for people has barely begun. One reason is that many countries that embraced democracy have suffered reversal, while many others have limited political competition and continuing abuse of political and civil rights. Then there’s the disturbing spread of “illiberal” democracies, where elected governments act the same as their authoritarian predecessors, depriving citizens of human rights and ignoring constitutional limits on power. They do not seem to be transitioning anywhere. Even where democracy is more firmly established, people are disappointed by the economic and social results. Many fought for and won-democracy in the hope of greater social justice, broader political participation and peaceful resolution of violent conflicts. Rightly or wrongly, they expected democracy to bring more effective development.
Now, in Bangladesh, 30 years later, democracy has not produced dividends in the lives of ordinary people in too many countries. Income inequality and poverty have risen sharply. Poverty has continued to increase in a more democratic. The so called democratic regimes seem no better equipped to tackle the region’s high poverty and inequality than their authoritarian predecessors. Political instability and violence have also marred democratic transitions. Perhaps most serious, people in Bangladesh seem to have lost confidence in the effectiveness of their governments and often seem to be losing faith in democracy. More than 70% complain of increasing poverty, crime, corruption and drug trafficking and addiction go unheard and have reduced faith in governments. A recent survey asked more than 5,481 people in Bangladesh, “Would you say that your country is government by the will of the people?” Less than 10% said yes. The survey also asked, “Does government responds to the will of the people?” Only 6% said that it did. For some people these disappointments mean that democracy is incompatible with economic and social development. But history also teaches that democracy, in itself, does not guarantee greater social justice, faster economic growth or increased social and political stability. The links between democracy and Good governance can be strong but they are not automatic. The best way to achieve this is by strengthening democratic institutions and promoting democratic Governance.
The underprivileged and disadvantaged people anguished by its journey through the 20th century, see their country marred by bloodshed, calamities and discriminations. They are eager for a better future in the new century a future guided by justice illuminating the gloomy skies of the past and present and based on the dignity and rights of all human beings. Much has been said about the pains and sufferings of humankind. Too often have victims of all ages paid the price for the power, wealth and deceptions of a privileged few. In one corner of the world people ma have attained acceptable living conditions. Yet the rupture between form and content and the ensuing spiritual anguish have tormented their lives. People struggle with a multitude of afflictions ranging from poverty, ignorance and exclusion to undemocratic rulers who are often subservient to the world’s major powers. Over the past century democracy evolved as a value, inspiring new models of governance. In an age of awakening for people and nations, rulers must come to terms with this value-and allow human beings to realize liberty, spirituality and dignity.
The main features of democracy-which should be clearly distinguished from its various manifestations-include people’s right to determine their destinies; the emanation of authority, particularly political authority, from the free will and choice of the people and its submission to their continued scrutiny. No single form of democracy in the context of spirituality and morality may usher in yet another model of democratic life. Democratic principles have become the criteria for good governance domestically. They deserve to become the new norm governing global interactions. Thus the exigencies of a few power holders should not supersede the interests of humanity through now-familiar practices of endorsing undemocratic governments, unresponsive to the will and needs of their people, and applying double and multiple standards in response to incidents around the globe. The structure of power in our contemporary world must be reformed. In a global society whose constituents are nations with equal rights and dignity-much like equal individuals within nations-divers cultures and civilizations should work together to build a moral, humane world with liberty and progress for all.
The global community ultimately requires the emergence of a responsive moral society, avoiding the use of force and coercion in national and international disputes. Values and norms that are not codified into laws, and laws that lack enforcement mechanisms, will have no tangible effect. Thus globalization is intertwined with the articulation of new collective rights and ethics, and the ensuing impact on national and international norms and institutions. The world’s future belongs to democracy at all levels of governance, advancing ethical, legal and political values based on dialogue and the free exchange of ideas and cultures. Let us advance the United Nations to promote the equitable participation of all nations and civilizations in tomorrow’s global governance.
If democracies are not always responsive to the need and concerns of ordinary people, how can they be made to work better? The answer turns on whether people can go beyond simply expressing their views and preferences to check the power of rulers and influence decisions. Accountability is about power-about people having not just a say in official decisions but also the right to hold their rulers to account. They can demand answers to questions about decisions and actions. And they can sanction public officials or bodies that do not live up to their responsibilities. Today the insistence that public officials be held accountable is extending to corporations, multinational organizations and others who have more power in public decision-making. Because of their influence over the lives of people and communities, they are holders of the public trust-and so answerable for their actions to national legislatures and to the public.
Accountability means different things in different contexts. Often the concern is with sanctions against legal wrongdoing: when a corporation violates environmental pollution standards, for example. If a company can pollute its environment with impunity, there is no accountability because national laws and regulations are weak or poorly enforced. In other cases the concern may be to sanction teachers, doctors and others who are not meeting minimum professional standards. All these kinds of accountability are central to democratic governance-to ensuring that the holders of the public trust are acting effectively and fairly. In democracies, people can demand accountability in two ways: through action by civil society and through structures of representation and delegation. But apart from elections, most formal mechanisms of accountability are delegated. The most important are the checks and balances between the judiciary, legislature and executive-and specialized and independent oversight entities such as human rights commissions, electoral commissions, public service commissions, ombudspersons, auditors general and anticorruption bodies.
The problem is, democratic institutions in Bangladesh, a democracy in is youth, are overburdened and lack the means to do their jobs. Political parties are disorganized. Representatives cannot keep in close contact with their constituents. Oversight and regulatory agencies lack will-trained staff. Bureaucrats are zealously guarding their way of command as they have an upper hand in every decision making. Resource constraints are not the only institutional weakness. Sometimes national institutions are ineffective because real power lies elsewhere. In a more integrated country, weak and indebted people have to remain absent as vast areas of policy-making over which they have no control with real actors. Even where arrangements for accountability exist, they do not function well in many democracies. They do not promote the interests of most people. And they do an even poorer job of protecting the interests of minorities, women and poor people. There are two main reasons: corruption and elite captures and subvert Democratic institutions. The people in democratic institutions have inadequate reach, and there are gaps in democratic practice.
Corruption, abuses of power, intimidations by criminal elements-all weaken democratic accountability. Oversight and regulatory agencies may also fail to act when they have been captured be political or special interests. Judicial systems often seem more diligent in prosecuting crimes committed by poor people than crimes against them. Surveys of poor people find that at best, the police and judiciary are considered unresponsive-at worst, as aggressive abusers of judicial rights. A recent World Bank survey found that around the world, poor people often view police as:
· Unresponsive-absent when need, coming only when someone has been killed.
· Corrupt-making false arrests, accusations and imprisonments, with release conditioned enlarge bribes; stealing money from children; threatening, blackmailing and extorting citizens; using illegal drugs; conniving with criminals.
· Brutal-harassing street vendors; confiscating identification documents; raping women who register complaints; beating up innocent people; torturing and killing homeless boys.
Judicial systems reinforce these biases by failing to punish police abuses. Corruption can also subvert oversight by police complaint authorities, ombudspersons, independent judicial commissions and national human rights commission. A police commander was accused of the killing. In the course of his trial, six prosecution witnesses were murdered. A study of land disputes found that gender bias and corruption routinely lead local tribunals to fail to uphold women’s land rights in disputes with male relatives over the sale of family and homestead land. These disputes often involve adult sons or male relatives harassing elderly widows to relinquish the land they have inherited from their husbands, or husbands selling family land without consulting their wives. Routinely faced with officials’ demands for “informal” payments, women who tried to pursue their cases were generally unable to out bribe their male relatives. In some cases land sellers colluded with members of the village council.
The gender bias and corruption are not checked by type of accountability. The electoral system is particularly inadequate because women face many obstacles to winning seats on local village councils. Payoffs flowed into all levels of the administrative hierarchy, almost guaranteeing that supervisors would not penalize junior officers for failing to enforce regulations. Subordinates returned the favor by not blowing the whistle on those higher up. Transparency International Bangladesh, in a 2000 study of the nation’s banking industry, found that people getting credit from the formal banking sector had to pay a direct bribe equal to 2-20% of the loan value. The higher percentages were extorted from uneducated rural applicants, partly because the bribes were being shared with government officials reviewing the loans. Worse, borrowers often paid up to half of a loan’s value to secure a promise from branch managers that the loan would not have to be repaid, a promise often breached. When the supposed beneficiaries are left with little choice but to collude in bribery, it undermines their willingness to protest-and corruption becomes harder to expose.
Judicial proceedings can also be undermined, providing little protection to ordinary people, especially poor people. Judicial systems are often inaccessible. They use official language that many people con not speak or write. And too often they are open to bribes. Where victims have no judicial recourse, their abusers often go unpunished-especially when they are members of the police. Those minorities, poor people and other marginalized groups are disproportionately the victims of physical abuse and other mistreatment by the police. Gender bias in judicial proceedings is another problem. Male-dominated village councils systematically fail to uphold the rights of women. Electoral processes can be subverted by fraud. Opposition candidates charging fraud and irregularities have contested numerous elections. Money in Governance is especially serious because it can distort democratic institutions at every level. It can distort the election process and the extent to which elected leaders represent their constituents. And it can distort parliamentary Governance and the functioning of the judiciary and the executive. This problem has recently reached the top of the political agenda in many countries, often as a result of scandals at the highest levels of government. In several countries politicians have been charged with accepting money from criminals, for their private benefit or for campaign purposes. Senior politicians fro all the main political parties allegedly disregarded campaign financing laws. The scandal prompted the passage of campaign contribution laws meant to prevent political financing abuse.
Electoral processes cannot operate without financing. But where money plays a decisive role in Governance, it turns unequal economic power into unequal political advantage and undermines the principle of “one person, one vote”. The problem is not new. But the soaring cost of elections has almost certainly made the situation worse. Though a large campaign budget does not guarantee success, it is important in many contests: Such costs make for an uneven playing field in political contests because they make it almost impossible for an under funded candidate to enter a race. These costs also increases politicians’ dependence on certain sources of financing, leaving the democratic system vulnerable to the undue influence of special interest groups-particularly corporate interests.

Even well functioning formal structures of participation and accountability are at best only blunt instruments. Elections and other formal checks enable citizens only to end the tenure of politicians who abuse their mandates. And joining political parties, seeking to influence their agendas and voting in elections have rarely been enough to safeguard the rights of women, minorities and poor people. Nor do these mechanisms have the reach to tackle injustices that affect people daily lives. Even repeated parliamentary questioning had not gone to the heart of the problem, which was that elites had captured the program and distorted it to their won ends. One solution to such problems is to decentralize power to lower levels of government bringing it closer to the people. But local officials are no more immune to elite capture than officials in central government. Indeed, far from strengthening local democracy, decentralization can actually reinforce the power and influence of local elite. In these circumstances citizens may have more luck with officials who are farther away. A recent survey of 12 countries found that in only half was there any evidence-some quite limited that decentralization empowers more people, reduces poverty, enhances social progress or mitigates spatial inequality. Decentralization helps poor people most when local Governance is democratic, with strong structures and open participatory practices.
Why do business interests influence public policy in democracies. Sometimes it is a matter of corrupt public officials seeking personal gain. But two other factors are also at work. First, governments serve the public interest by promoting businesses, which create jobs and generate economic growth. Policies that discouraged the success of businesses could not only undermine national economies but could also drive businesses overseas. Second, businesses tend to command resources and access unmatched by other groups-whether representing workers, consumers or environmental cause.
In Bangladesh corporate contributions and lobbying are prominent features of the political landscape.
Corporate donations and lobbies often drown out the voices of workers, consumers, women, environmentalists and other interest and citizen groups. For example, show how the concerns of local people, intellectuals, environmentalists and other groups are often ignored until they develop into protests and major confrontations. Widespread suspicion and scorn of corporate conduct and higher expectations of corporations’ mars social responsibility. Almost four out of five respondents held companies responsible for public health and safety. Two-thirds said that companies are responsible for bribery and corruption. More than half the people surveyed said that business did not pay enough attention to its social responsibilities. People are increasingly concerned that corporations are not held accountable for their actions, either because laws are weak or are weakly enforced. Indeed, even when domestic legislation is adequate, it is often not implemented.
Donations to politicians and political parties are only one way for businesses to influence policies. Corporate engage in a broad range of activities to ensure that their views get a hearing and influence policy. They draft and submit legislation, offer testimony and participate in consultation. They also influence how policies are applied-by negotiating implementation schedules, supporting certain nominees for official appointments and influencing the judiciary through briefing seminars. Reforming political financing is crucial, and should include:
· Increasing transparency and disclosure of the sources of all election, party and candidate financing.
· Setting clear limits on spending as well as on contributions-by level and by source.
· Providing public funding for candidates and parties.
Initiatives can also address the flip side of the coin, by introducing norms for socially responsible corporate behavior in political activity. More responsible political activity includes:
· Transparency, with corporations making clear their political activities.
· Accountability, with corporations making an effort to respond to public concerns.
· Consistency, with corporations making their positions consistent with those of groups that advocate on their behalf, such as industry associations or “front groups”.
The most effective and ambitious approach would be for corporate interests to get out of Governance altogether. In all likelihood this would require legislation because all businesses would need to act simultaneously. Only if accompanied by strong support to community groups, decentralization can empower ordinary people. Thus formal structures of accountability in democracy are strong in theory but are often undermined by self-perpetuating concentrations of power and influence. In some countries the same Prime ministers have alternated at the helm for decades, and dynastic Governance continues. Despite democratic upheavals and some inroads into Governance by underrepresented groups, elites hold on to state power, and unequal power structures prevail. Breaking such vicious circles will require strengthening democratic institution and state capacities. But that is only part of the solution. Political pressure also has to come from outside formal structures, through the emergence of more vibrant democratic Governance.
Bangladesh recently took steps towards democratization have yet to shake off the legacies of authoritarian pasts, and democratic institutions and practices have yet to take root. Representative processes appear to be in crisis even in well-established democracies. Countries can start to restore public trust in representative structures and reduce the concentration of political power by:
· Developing stronger vehicles for formal political participation and representation through political parties and electoral systems.
· Strengthening checks on arbitrary power by separating powers among the executive, judiciary and legislature, and by creating effective independent entities.
· Decentralizing democratically: devolving pore from the central government to provinces and villages, underpinned by stronger local democratic institutions and practices.
· Developing free and independent media.
A well functioning democracy depends on well-functioning political parties responsive to people but new democracies mean new parties. These parties are not yet able to fulfill there their traditional functions of political education, mobilization and representation of diverse interests. In many countries opposition parties disappear between elections, while ruling parties behave like they used to under single-party systems. A dearth of public funding and limits on fundraising leave parties dependent on a few wealthy individuals to finance their activities and campaigns. And with perks and patronage flowing from ruling parties, politicians are increasingly switching party affiliation “crossing the carpet” to join the winning party. Quotas are designed to facilitate women’s access to elected office. But increasing women’s political participation requires a long-term strategy for changing log-standing practices that keep women out of Governance. Such change cannot be legislated overnight. Not everyone-including some women’s rights activists-considers quotas a sustainable strategy. But without such radical measures it would be difficult to achieve the critical mass of women’s representation needed to foster a new culture-one that should culminate in the balanced presence of women both in parliaments and in the governing bodies of political parties. Quotas are primarily a temporary remedial measure, and are no substitute for raising awareness, increasing political education, mobilizing citizens and removing procedural obstacles to women getting nominated and elected. And being voted into office is merely the beginning of women’s struggles for full participation-it does not mean that they acquire a real political base and inexperience is a handicap for new legislators.
So, improving the quality of women’s participation in policy-making is as important as increasing the number of women elected, and man initiatives are under way to support women once elected. a non-governmental organization (NGO), provides training in such areas as legislative agenda setting, proposal development, advocacy and participation in audit and floor deliberations. This training has helped female legislators in three provinces pass gender-related ordinances, such as the creation of crisis centers for women, and promoted gender-responsive policy decisions on issues such as violence against women. Forging links between female politicians and women’s groups sustains advocacy initiatives to pass laws that promote women’s rights. The goal was to sensitize the women to gender-specific concerns and to how these concerns can be addressed through their participation as advocates or public officials. Too often the organizational structure of parties is any thing but participatory. Parties that are not open and transparent are unlikely to be democratic in their policy commitments. Without internal democracy, parties become individual fiefdoms. Charismatic leadership, more than party platform, often drives party loyalty. Creating a culture of democracy in political parties is thus vital. At the very least this should involve open, competitive elections for party leadership.
Elections are complex processes requiring systematic organization. Improving voter registration and rolls and setting up independent electoral commissions are cornerstones of a free and fair system. The inclusion of parties and candidates as stakeholders, monitors and defenders of elections, and not just as contenders, can help ensure stability. The media can also contribute to this effort-diffusing information, focusing public debate and increasing civic and voter education. So can civil society played a central role in voter education, explaining to citizens their rights and duties to vote according to their free will and conscience, the value of voting in a democracy and the nature of new election laws. These campaigns also helped convince citizens of the fairness of the system, its transparency and the parties and personalities entering into political life of the country. Bangladesh is trying to strengthen systems of representation. Whether in established or new democracies, these efforts tend to have some common elements:
· Improving governance in political parties, with ethical standards, training, discipline and better financial management.
· Promoting the participation of minorities and women. Political parties have been a major institutional factor behind the chronic under representation of minorities and women. The situation is improving, but at a snail’s pace. Affirmative action is often needed to overcome entrenched obstacles. Quotas, either in legislatures or in parties, have been instrumental in raising representation. They have been used in the countries with the highest representation of women in parliament and are making changes in countries where female participation in Governance has historically been lower.
· Building electoral systems. Many countries, both long-established and new democracies, are reforming their electoral systems.
· Limiting the distorting influence of money in Governance. Reform of political finance is under active debate in many countries, aiming to improve transparency, level the playing field (by setting limits on spending and contributions), encourage public subsidies and grass-roots contributions and manage undue corporate and business influences on public policy. IN the wake of allegations of political corruption a common response has been new laws-already introduced in some countries. Elements of these initiatives include disclosure laws, spending limits contribution limits, bans on certain types of donations, direct and indirect public subsidies for parties and candidates and subsidies for political broadcasting. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance show that stricter laws are only a first step and that when silence, indifference and lack of technical training accompany political financing laws, abuses are best able to flourish.
Democracies suffer reversals when elected governments are overturned. But may elected governments have turned authoritarian, increasingly behaving like their autocratic predecessors. The keys to preventing such abuses of power are enlightening the judiciary and professionalizing the bureaucracy and the military. Whether the judiciary can maintain its independence is often the litmus test for whether democratically elected rule can avoid turning autocratic. Indeed, the tug of war between a judiciary fighting to stay autonomous and political parties and the executive is a continuing feature of political life. Over the decades judiciary has rebuffed continued encroachments on its independence. In recent years renewed judicial activism has vigorously defended citizens fundamental rights. It has also safeguarded environmental and other public goods. And it has tackled issues of democratic accountability and charges of corruption in the executive. The attempt was defeated and the courts ruled that the basic framework of the constitution could not be altered. Courts started to hear public interest litigation involving the human rights of poor and powerless people, especially in cases of police brutality and torture, custodial rape and inhumane treatment in jails. These cases also protected such public goods as clean air and water and uncontaminated blood supplies. This judicial activism coincided with the rise of civil society organizations and social movements dedicated to social justice and human rights goals. The synergy built among civil society, reform-minded members of the middle classes and several supreme and high court justices like helped advance these causes. Legal reforms provided for class action suits on behalf of poor, oppressed and victimized citizens.
There were countermoves in parliament, which alleged that the judiciary was encroaching on legislative and administrative functions beyond its authority, and that judges were exploiting recent corruption trials. A lively debate continues about these institutions, their development and their contribution to the vitality of democratic Governance. In Bangladesh, however, domination by the executive branch and excessive influence of security forces, especially the police remains stubborn legacies. Shifting to a more balanced system, with an independent judiciary and legislature, does not happen overnight. The legislature often plays a limited role in policy making, for example, with budgets discussed only at their final stage. In Bangladesh the controlling majority often amends constitutions with out broad debate. As political pressure mounts to challenge their power, rulers may try to maintain their hold on it through, for example, constitutional amendments that reinforce the power of the executive. In many countries bureaucratic rule continues as well, often conflicting with democratic reforms even in long established democracies. Civil servants may not readily adjust to the role of holder of public trust. Jurisdictional conflicts between electoral commissions and ministries of the interior highlight the difficulties of overcoming bureaucratic rule.
Bangladesh is trying to confront these problems, with mixed success. In addition to providing parliaments and judiciaries with equipment, procedures and adequately trained professional staff, they are introducing innovations and structural reforms to reinforce checks on abuses of power. And they are strengthening parliamentary committees to foster more effective decision-making and to monitor the executive. Another approach is to strengthen independent entity especially electoral commissions and human rights commissions. All can promote and defend critical reforms and democratic practices in Bangladesh where imbalances of power between the executive and the other branches are sharp and critical. Independent electoral commissions play a critical role in ensuring free and fair elections. An important condition for their independence is budgetary independence, best secured by legal arrangements-and with budgets not only for elections but also for preparatory processes, then audited.
In principle, decentralizing power from the center to provinces, districts or villages enables people to participate in decision making more directly. But in reality it can simply transfer power from one set of elites to another. Democratic decentralization-truly giving voice to the people-requires more than just decentralizing and devolving power. It also requires widening participation-especially by people who are often marginalized, such as women, minorities and the poor-and increasing the accountability of public officials at local levels. This change dramatically increased the visibility and extent of popular participation. It also enabled marginalized groups to enter political debates-in-fusing new political resources into the system, enhancing the legitimacy of state institutions and bringing a measure of uniformity to the institutional structure of local governments all over the country. Political authorities in several states supported decentralization through the pan-cheats and effectively decentralized decision making to local levels. In some states progress has been slower in the absence of resource transfers. The successes have been most pronounced in states where democratic principles permeate local political parties and other institutions and processes and are reflected in the strong trust people have in them. Where local hierarchies are more deeply entrenched, the reform has made less headway. Some critics say that the local organizations are too heterogeneous and disorganized and that they undermine other civil society organizations, such as labor unions, that represent people’s interests. Others say that elites can still hijack the process. They say that the impact of the law would have been greater had it been accompanied be measures to restructure local party Governance and crack down on local corruption. They attribute the law’s limited results to the continuing hold of patronage-based political systems and processes in witch decisions are made without systematic consultation. Still, this innovative initiative brings civil society groups more clearly into local governance and deepens democratic practice.
Perhaps no reform can be as significant for making democratic institutions work as reform of the media: building diverse and pluralistic media that are free and independent, that achieve mass access and diffusion, that present accurate and unbiased information. Informed debate is the lifeblood of democracies. Without it, citizens and decision makers are disemboweled, lacking the basic tools for informed participation and representation. Free media play three crucial roles in promoting democratic governance.
(a) As a civic forum, giving voice to different parts of society and enabling debate from all viewpoints, (b) a free press is probably never more important to democratic governance than when acting as a public watchdog, and (c) stimulating debates on economic policy. Besides media can play vital role in the following matters of national interests.
· Monitoring elections: Personnel monitored the polls and reported irregularities, and ordinary citizens used the stations to report suspicious activities. In the past, citizens could learn about poll results only through official channels and suspicion was rife that the official results did not always reflect votes cast.
· Exposing human rights abuses: A dogged investigation by media men can expose unscrupulous political leaders, business magnets, law enforcing agencies and financial institutions including the CBAs ill motivated designs to plunder national wealth.
· Exposing political corruption: The investigations revealed death squads, military involvement in corruption and links between drug lords and the political establishment.
· Empowering women: The coalition for women has raised awareness of women’s rights through an active partnership with the media. It has kept women’s issues at the fore of national debate by providing speakers for radio, briefing local and foreign journalists and introducing new spare supplements and radio and television programs.
· A mobilizing agent, facilitating civic engagement among all sectors of society and strengthening channels of public participation.
· A watchdog, checking abuses of power, increasing government transparency and holding public officials accountable for their actions in the court of public opinion.
The past two decades have seen major advances in the spread of independent media. Economic and political reforms have loosened restrictions on the media-including censorship and ownership controls-and strengthened constitutional and legal guarantees of freedom of speech and information.
In many countries political, economic and technological forces are leveling the playing field in the market for ideas, enabling new voices and viewpoints to be heard. Most people have many more sources of information both in quantity and diversity than they did just 10 years ago. Widely available information is crucial to democratic governance because it helps challenge government authorities and provokes more balanced debate on problems and policies. Freedom and diversity are reinforcing the media’s roles as mobilizing agents and watchdogs. Still, Bangladesh is a long way from having a genuinely free and independent media that can serve democratic purposes. Few countries have freedom of information laws, and journalists often work under strict constraints. Even where press freedoms are constitutionally protected, governments have invented new ways to rein in the press. Journalism also remains a hazardous occupation. Journalists or their news organizations were intimidated or physically attacked-mostly because some people did not agree with what they have reported.
In 1994 writer Albert Camus said, “The press is free when it does not depend on either the power of government or the power of money.” To be free and independent and to produce factual, unbiased information’s, the media must be free not just from state control-but also from corporate and political pressures. With greater media pluralism comes and expectation of greater political pluralism in the media and greater potential for broader, better informed debate. But commercial and political pressures still skew the market for ideas. Liberalization, privatization and new technology have taken the media out of government hands and into private hands. Most of the world’s publishing media are privately owned the public still. In a few countries families of influential politicians are major owners of the media. Citizens, politicians and journalists are engaging in lively debates about how the media’s politicization and poor professional standards contribute to the deterioration of democratic life. The media can be subjected to overtly political aims, compromising basic professional ethics of providing unbiased, accurate information. Truth is the first casualty of war, but the media are usually the victim, not the aggressors.
Media companies are businesses and can be expected to behave as such. Hence the increasing trend towards “infotainment”-the merging of information and entertainment-also viewed as a threat by many. Media companies also have a civic role as providers of news and information. The tensions between these two roles will never be eliminated and the answer to excessive corporate influence over the news cannot be a return to excessive control by the state. Solutions must combine the need to hold the media accountable and responsible with the need to keep it free. The media can be free of both corporate and state control if it serves the public first and foremost and follows higher standards of professionalism and ethics. A range of mechanisms for promoting higher standards of professionalism and responsibility do no depend on restrictive state controls:
· Independent media commissions. There is an independent media commission which is authorized “ to take all appropriate measures to ensure the establishment and maintenance of the highest journalistic standards in the mass media.” Using a combination of moral suasion and professional goodwill, the commission has often ruled against the abuse of power by newspapers and directed them to issue apologies and retractions.
· Market sanctions voting with the pocketbook. The public can always withdraw its support for an offending newspaper or medium by refusing to buy or view it.
· Self-regulation. Self-regulation includes professional standards and internal guidelines by newspapers and news agencies. Press councils that examine complaints about media performance are another key element. There is greater attention to the need to raise professional standards through codes of ethics, training, education and a broader emphasis on quality.
Many of the above elements come together in Claude Jean Bertrand’s Media Accountability System (also known as M*A*S), which emphasizes greater efforts by the media to develop ethical standards, especially through open debates with the public. The system also makes clear that media responsibility does not derive solely from institutional efforts. It starts with the consciences of individual journalists and must be based on socially accepted norms and standards of fair conduct. In recent years there have been positive developments in this regard: the news media are more willing to publicly examine press ethics and performance, and journalism courses are addressing ethics more often.
Though strengthening democratic institutions is essential, it is not enough to promote more effective participation by people and more responsive decision making by those in power. An alert citizenry is what makes democratic institutions and processes work. Political pressure from below is usually the most effective trigger of change. Major advances in Good governance over the past two centuries the abolition of slavery, the recognition of equal rights of women, the advance of democracy itself would not have been granted from above. They had to be fought for. While much has been written about the challenges of creating democratic institutions, there has been much less analysis of democratic Governance: the struggles of poor and marginalized people to claim their rights and to overcome institutionalized obstacles. These struggles depend as much on strengthening civil liberties, civil society institutions and a free media as on strengthening political liberties and political institutions. “It is quite possible to have accountability in the high Governance of the state, hones rulers and free elections, and yet profound injustice or irresponsibility in the deep Governance of society, that is, the relations between rich and poor, powerful and weak.”
A trend of the past decade is the expansion of democratic Governance, with a groundswell of civic activism around the world demanding greater accountability of government authorities and of private business and multilateral organizations. These civil society actors are using new and innovative approaches to get their messages heard, and expanding their role from watchdogs that monitor to active participants in setting agendas. One of the more significant examples is the rise of participatory and accountable budgeting: civil society initiatives to scrutinize public spending and in some cases participate in the development of official budgets. Few government decisions mean as much for ordinary people as those made during the writing of public budgets-especially for poor people who rely on “public incomes” such as schooling, health care, roads, water supply and electricity. Yet ordinary people typically have little say in budget for emulation. In most countries the budget process is almost exclusively the prerogative of bureaucrats and the executive branch. Parliaments also participate, but often only at the end. And much of the process is usually shrouded in secrecy unmatched by any other part of government decision making aside from national security.
But recent initiatives by citizen groups to examine local and central budgets are helping to open this process to the voices of ordinary people. Many of these initiatives start with social audits or impact evaluations-analyses that elicit concerns about spending priorities and the misuse of funds.
Gender responsive budgets are an innovative new tool that empower women’s organizations and civil society to hold public spending accountable to international and national commitments for promoting gender equality. Gender responsive budgets were started mint to assess the impact on gender equity of all elements of the national budget to expand participation and accountability in budgeting, especially in light of international commitments to promote gender equality. Over the past decade advocates for gender equality began using gender-responsive budgets in a multitude of ways. Governments initiated some, others were initiated by civil society groups, yet parliamentarians initiated others. Most focus on monitoring, while some engage in preparatory phases. Most work at the national levels, where traditional and oppressive gender relations are stronger. All point to the effect of this new tool in stimulating new participatory Governance challenging the “Power of the purse.” By linking researchers and members of parliament, the researchers could be taken forward into advocacy, while the parliamentarians would have a solid basis for their advocacy. From the start the core members of the initiative were also expected to draw in others as researchers and reference people. This and the above initiative have had some positive effects.
Analysis and Research, a policy research NGO, have undertaken gender budgeting projects within their states and municipalities, evaluating them in light of decentralization experiences and the transfer of resources for local budgets. They have tried to do so by involving civil society organizations, public servants and statistical institutions, and have encouraged public debate on local budget decisions. Liberal Women’s Foundation a sister wing of the Institute of Liberal Democracy brought together women occupying seats reserved for them, people with disabilities, youth and workers as well as women who have won “open” seats, to go beyond the monitoring of budget allocations and processes to examine the impact of all spending and revenue. Monitoring and analyzing council meetings, holding workshops and training courses for delegates, council members and community leaders, researching participants’ perception of theses processes and disseminating information through papers, revising regional or thematic demands and budget allocations. Although this initiative is not specifically targeting gender issues, the participatory process and the research and advocacy work accompanying it have highlighted several gender-related concerns and provide insights for other gender budget initiatives. These efforts sometimes help reverse official decisions.
New types of popular participation are spreading across Bangladesh as civil society groups go beyond whistle blowing and protests to take on oversight functions that are normal the responsibility of state institutions. Such initiatives have led to participatory budgeting-more systematic, institutionalized public participation in the preparation of budgets, introduced a process that enables citizens to participate in preparing municipal budgets. In its first seven years the process resulted in remarkable gains in Good governance spending for poor people. Participatory budget shows that even the veil of technical complexity that has protected budgets from open questioning can be lifted once citizen groups have time, skills and access to information. These new forms of people’s participation-from influencing agendas through protests to increasing collaboration in decision making are reinforcing democratic institutions. E-governance is another emerging avenue for people’s participation in Governance, encouraging more direct citizen engagement with elected representatives.
Civil society organization offered suggestions assembly on two occasions. These initiatives were complemented by others that broadened the debate on the new constitution the debate on the new constitution through mass media campaigns and by public hearings organized in and all the distends.
These autonomous efforts offer enormous promise because they offer a more direct channel of accountability defying conventional constraints on social action, which typically require going through established institutions of accountability. But that disregard for convention also raises difficult questions for accountability and democratic governance. In particular, the ability of these networks to inflict large and immediate costs on the reputations of public and private actors tends to work against the notion of due process. Criteria for weighing information are usually vague and subject to change without notice, and the scope for malicious misinformation are enormous. These and other concerns about the proper roles and responsibilities of civil society actors have created demand for these groups to be more publicly accountable for their activities: a demand that many are working to meet. The codes emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability and the need to ensure that the NGOs are truly representative of the people whose lives they affect.
Expanding political and civic space for popular social engagement is critical for deepening democracy and building democratic governance. Responsibilities for expanding this space lie both with the state, which must protect civil and political freedoms, and with the members or society who engage in and invigorate this exercise. And while guaranteeing basic political and civil freedoms is a crucial first step, many countries restrict the activities of trade unions, professional organizations and NGOs. In some countries NGOs can be banned for having political aims. And as noted, in many countries the media are restricted from voicing dissent or have inadequate dissemination. Civic activism cannot be said to have failed just because some actions do not lead to change. Some initiatives are bound to fail, just as all but one candidate will necessarily lose an election. What is important in democracies is the spread of democratic practice, where people can voice their views, influence decisions and monitor performance against commitments-both national and international.
Strengthening accountability is central to a larger process of embedding democratic values, practices and principles in every aspect of society-to build strong, durable and inclusive democracies more responsive and accountable to ordinary people. But the gap between democratic aspiration and practice is wide in long-standing democracies as well as new ones. The chronic under representation of women, the neglect of minority interests and the unaccountable and untransparent military and civil service are common issues. Democratic deficits can mean hollow citizenship. People do not have fully equal rights and entitlements because constitutions fail to guarantee them or because administrative institutions fail to enforce them. And when there is a lag between norms and entitlements, rights are not respected- as is often the case with discrimination against women.
The Citizens Committee on the Quality of Democracy was a systematic process to public deliberation and analysis. It mapped out how democracy works in everyday life comes close to their democratic aspirations and where there are shortfalls. The process first defined standards for assessing the quality of democracy-a set of shared democratic aspirations. A panel of prominent politicians, academic, business leaders and others-was established for this purpose, augmented by surveys and focus group consultations. This was followed by field research involving more than 50 researchers collecting empirical evidence, which panels of citizens then assessed against the standards using an objective methodology. The committee found that people do not evaluate the quality of democracy as a whole. Among the peaks are the quality of the electoral system and the constitutional review of public polities. Among the valleys are local governments. The hot spots are the lack of citizen participation in social and political organizations and in public policies, extensive clientelistic practices in social policy programs and poor treatment of citizens by bureaucrats. By investigating democratic aspirations, the committee brought home an important insight. For Bangladeshis, democracy is more than a democratic regime. Although elections and freedom lie at the democratic core, most people also believe that democracy is a way of exercising political power in daily life. In other words, democracy is a political regime requiring a particular kind of state one that protects human rights, ensures accountability and the rule of law and treats people with fairness and respect. Citizens view democracy as a way of organizing society so that people do not suffer extreme inequalities that impede the exercise of their citizenship. The committee also found stark sub national differences in the quality of democratic life, underscoring in the importance of going beyond conventional nation state approaches to democracy. These insights call new attention to the importance of social and economic inequalities and political participation. The committee has already left its mark. The government’s proposal for administrative reform includes a chapter on the rights of citizens, based largely on the committee’s findings on widespread poor treatment by public official. The audio has also helped entrepreneurial chambers and trade unions launch fresh exchanges on the divisive issue of freedom of organization in private firms. Moreover, the committee is inspiring other countries to perform similar exercises. Democratic realists say that this is to be expected of representative democracy, which above all is a system of political competition, not one intended exclusively to empower citizens, generate high or direct participation in government affairs or produce economic and social justice. And certainly, democratization does not guarantee social justice any more than it guarantees economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency, political harmony, free markets or the end of ideology. But the institutions, practices and ideals of democracy have the capacity to challenge the concentration of political power and prevent the emergence of tyranny. Thus they play a crucial role in building governance that is by the people as well as for the people.
Good governance in its fullest sense requires democratic governance with all people able to participate in the institutions and decisions that shape their lives and all those who hold power held accountable for their actions. Achieving Good governance also depends on peace and personal security. In places where governments have not delivered civic peace people begin to question whether there is a trade off between securing peace and establishing democratic governance. The challenge of sustaining peace looms large in many other countries, including many that triumphantly embraced democracy Building a functioning state requires a basic level of security. And by being responsive to the need for security, democratic governance can help lay the foundations for maintaining order and managing development. It follow that Good governance will be held back in any country where the police and other security related institutions hold sway over democratic institutions or are not democratically accountable for much of their power or are fragmented and anarchic. Yet that is the situation in most developing countries today. Moreover, security forces are often largely responsible for formulating security policy in new and old democracies alike.
It is no exaggeration to proclaim that at the beginning of the third millennium, many signs affirm that Bangladesh is finally on the wrong path.
· First, recognizing that good governance is indispensable for Bangladesh’s development.
· Second, accepting regional development as the core necessary
· Finally, for the first time, sincerely opening to people oriented politics.
Infrastructure development in broad sense, education, health, agriculture, the environment, new information and communications technology, energy and access to the markets of developed countries. Building national capacity to meet these commitments will require administrative and civil service reforms, strong parliamentary oversight, participatory decision making at all levels effective measures to combat corruption and comprehensive judicial reform. By encouraging political pluralism, free and open elections, civilian control of the military, a thriving private sector and the protection of labor unions and other civil society groups Bangladesh can prosper in no time. Throughout history and in many developing countries today, authoritarian governments have resisted or overturned moves towards democracy arguing that democracy is incompatible with public order and personal security. But the record suggests that the opposite is true. Democratic civil control over state security forces, far from opposing personal security, is essential to it. Without that controls the supposed guarantors of personal security is its greatest threat.
Where governments rely on security for their power base, security forces are often the main cause of insecurity for their citizens and neighboring states. Unchecked and unaccountable, security institutions often prey on the most vulnerable members of society, hampering daily struggles for survival and other basic freedoms. Throughout much of Bangladesh there is widespread torture, intimidation and harassment of civilians by police on behalf of ruling regimes. Many police forces are absent where need, fail to respond to calls for help or arrive on the scene only when someone has been killed. Despite all this, people desperately need the police to provide basic physical security in their neighborhoods. Participatory poverty assessments often find that lack of physical security is one of poor people’s main concerns. The irony is that those most in need of professional, well-functioning security forces poor and socially excluded people-are generally the most suspicious of the services tees public institutions provide, and not without reason. They recognize that, all to often, security forces are behind the proliferation of civil conflict. Undemocratic governance of security forces can also distort security priorities. In may countries a bias towards military security has led governments to militarize police forces or to seriously undermining their capacity to guarantee people’s safety and security. In Bangladesh, the police and other security forces have barely subsistence wages, limited or no training, corrupt management and high non-conscience levels. So, economic and social inequalities translate into large inequalities in personal security. In response, poor communities feel that they must create local militias or even report to less organized forms of delivering “justice”. Even in the poor people are much more likely than rich people to fall victim to violent crime. Elected leaders in fledgling democracies often depend on security forces, in-clouding military units, to stay in office because those forces are the most powerful in society. For the same reason, leaders may actively resist greater accountability and openness for the military, because they depend on its power for their own ends.
Security policies-both internal and external are at the center of power relations within and among societies. Yet they are also usually the area where civil society, the government and its oversight institutions have the least say. The lack of transparency and accountability is particularly problematic in budgeting, where a select few individuals in the executive branch make decisions on security policies and resources. Key officials in the minister of finance and other parts of the executive are often excluded form decision-making or find their decisions circumvented. Parliamentary bodies, which may even have oversight authority in the national constitution-and the media and civil society are routinely kept in the dark. Governments and their security forces have an obligation to protect the security of their borders and their people. This perhaps justifies more confidentiality than applies to other parts of government. But in democratic systems there should also be an obligation for policy-makers and security forces to be accountable to the public resources. Minor adjustments can accommodate legitimate needs for confidentiality without violating the principles of sound public management. Effective accountability in security matters will never materialize if oversight institutions lack the capacity to assess security activities. Without that capacity, a cycle of ignorance will persist. When legitimate civilian actors are denied participation or a monitoring role over security policy-making, they lack detailed knowledge of security issues. This limited knowledge then enables security forces to argue that decision making should rest with those with relevant knowledge with the security forces.
Core principles for democratic governance of the security sector can help governments balance the need for secrecy with the need for greater democratic control. But few countries approach this ideal, and democratic governance is being held back b a systematic failure to transform the role of the military and the police.
In Bangladesh, attempting to achieve democratic governance of security forces face three challenges. The first is establishing direct leadership of security forces by executive departments, fiscal oversight by parliament and specialized committing bodies and monitoring by the media and civil society. The second challenge is developing a culture of professionalism and political neutrality within security forces. The third is clearly separating an effective police force from the military and encouraging community policing. With the move to democracy, formal control of security forces is supposed to be transferred to civil authorities. But real control and public accountability often lag far behind. Spending on security forces does not compete on an equal footing with spending to meet the basic needs of all people, particularly the vulnerable. Democratic governance requires that of security forces rest on solid legal foundations, exercised with political responsibility. Civil authorities need to be in control, but they also need to give clear guidance to security forces, working with them and respecting their expertise. The quality of leadership in the executive branch is critical in determining the extent to which legal and cultural norms for democratic governance find acceptance. Efforts to create a security force that follows democratic principles and sound public spending will succeed only if a country’s political and administrative leadership is committed to creating effective, accountable institutions and ensuring that they function well.
Efforts to transform security institutions must also force change form within. This requires a shift in internal culture and new incentives for members to respect democratic civil authority and promote the public interest. Senior officers need to take a firm stand against corruption. They also need to make clear that they do not tolerate the diversion of state resources in other was such as using police for private purposes. Achieving these goals can be a matter of professional training. Indeed, in the long run there is probably no substitute for military training and broadly based education that teaches soldiers to respect human rights and abide by principles of democratic governance. National military academies do this, but they need to be tied to high professional standards for recruitment, instruction and promotion that are less prone to political interference and corruption. Perhaps even more urgent is professional training of police officers, which can do much for accountability and public trust. Induction programmers for police officers should focus on what it means to be a police officer in a democratic society, with special emphasis on policing by consent. Achieving these goals also requires sufficient public revenue. Without appropriate equipment and decent wages, security forces will suffer from poor discipline and corruption. For police, public resources can sometimes be supplemented by innovative public private partnerships. Such public-private initiatives raise that morale of police officers another element in building a more effective, corruption-free police force.
Democratic leaders must work to change the behavior of security forces today especially by punishing human rights violations and unprofessional conduct. Professional codes of police, military and intelligence conduct and review tribunals within security services can help in this regard. So can civilian commissions that investigate possible excesses. Visitations of human rights violations often launched by governments and civil society organizations, have been important steps towards greater accountability in the security sector. They helped expose human rights violations committed covertly or even openly by security forces. Over the medium and long term, judicial reform is also critical in enforcing accountability in security forces. Police action against crime can not promote personal security if judges can be bribed easily or if there are no prisons for convicted criminals. When privileged individuals whose appointments are merely political rewards control judicial systems, law enforcement is likely to be partial and rule is more likely to be by law than of law. When judicial systems fail to perform basic tasks, including issuing warrants and other legal orders, police officers often must resort to illegal actions to perform regular functions. Corrupt judicial and penitentiary systems also undermine the professionalism and credibility of the security sector if they allow crimes by soldiers or police officers to go unpunished.
Such reforms need to be combined with efforts to enhance the standing and capacity of the police. Even in communities where physical abuse and corruption by the police have been the norm, efforts to build trust and confidence can foster a new relationship between the police and the people. One way is for the police to get involved in the lives of young people, ethnic minorities and low-income groups. Another is to support community policing. Police forces with officers from diverse backgrounds tend to respond better to the challenges of diverse communities. Appointing and training female police officers increased reports of violence against women and girls to police and hospitals.
Such reforms take time and deep political commitment. For change to be sustained, democratic leaders must ensure that security institutions feel ownership in the process. Such reforms pose unique challenges but also yield unique benefits-for the security of citizens and the credibility of democratizations. Despite many challenges, strong political leadership and partnerships with civil society are leading to a less militarized, more professional police force. Substantive security sector reform involves so many deep-rooted aspects of local and national governance that it can seem like a hopeless task. It has a political dimension (civil control of security forces), an economic dimension (consumption of resources by security forces), a social dimension (guaranteeing citizens security) and a strong institutional dimension (professionalization of the security sector and institutional separation of the various actors).
Police reforms, especially those creating new forces, must foster new relationships with local communities. Community policing can overcome mistrust and advance collaboration between communities and police by giving people a substantial role in defining and guiding the performance of policing. The police stations provided regular patrol services, while the committee identified security problems and possible solutions. The project helped improve the image of the police force in different areas of metropolitan cities and its success led to its expansion in other communities. When such developments are combined with committed leadership and an involved civil society, conditions are ripe for significant democratic reforms of security forces that can reinforce broader political change-especially in countries recovering from violent armed conflict. The police have blurred roles in many developing countries. Police forces that are democratically accountable, impartial, depoliticized and composed of different political contingents and ethnic groups.23 Such forces can emerge only through effective training-particularly in the skills of community policing and other specialized training and through better ethnic and gender balance. Conflict is part of every society. The question is, how can societies give expression to conflict and provide open political space for all groups without generating violence. Democracies are supposed to provide the answer, with open political debate and open competition for power. But many well established democracies have not eliminated violent conflicts democratic processes have been ruthlessly undermined by authoritarian, often rule that squeezes the space for civil society and democratic Governance. Peace and personal security are the losers, especially when the accountability and effectiveness of security forces are corded.
The alarming number of conflict-prone countries underscores the need for a broader approach to conflict prevention indicates the need for an appropriate mix of political, security, humanitarian and developmental responses. Securing a just, sustainable peace in conflict-prone situations means building strong, transparent states with professional, civilian-led military and police. It means developing a democratic framework that tolerates diversity. It means building an open civil society that promotes democratic governance and personal security. And it means instilling in all state institutions-but especially the security forces-a culture of democracy rooted in respect for the rule of law and individual rights and dignity. This is the essence of democratic peace building. Antiterrorist measures taken in response to these and other new security threats often risk violating human rights. These make it easier for them to be violated including the prohibition of torture and other inhumane treatment, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and rights to freedom of opinion, expression and assembly. Democracies face difficult challenges in devising legitimate ways to prevent terrorist and bring the perpetrators to justice. There are few simple solutions. But respect for human rights lies at the heart of what it is to be a democracy and at the heart of democratic civil control of the security sector. In addressing legitimate con cams about public safety, free societies can not afford to lose sight of protecting core human freedoms. The traditional argument against greater participation and representation is that they render decision making clumsy and unworkable. But this view must be set against a new reality. Achieving deeper democracy in Bangladesh will require expanding political space for a range of civil society actors and including developing countries more deeply in the decision making. Efforts to achieve these goals must confront the realities of the nation. Whether this can be realized will largely depend on citizens and governments in Bangladesh recognizing that reform is in their interest. But in a more interdependent world, that interest is becoming more apparent. International institutions are promoting democracy and democratic principles in developing and transition economies. But they will not succeed without the natural corollary: greater democracy, transparency and accountability in the institutions themselves. This dual process deepening democracy at the national and global levels has the potential to transform the lives of the world’s people.
It would be too difficult to make any attempts to theories on the political philosophy of the ‘Democracy, Rule of the law and Human Rights. But when we speak of Rule of the people in the political sense of the term, namely, Freedom, the fundamental rights and the basic human rights, there can be no nobler sentiment in us than what was expressed in the great words of Islamic Scriptures, “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
Man needs the fellowship and services of other men. It is not life alone that they desire but a good and worthwhile life. And it is the function of Governance to assist men in achieving this good and meaningful life in society. The democratic process is designed to determine by popular discussion and decision the choice of the best means to achieve the common good. Democracy can never be sustained without the rule of law, which is its only safeguard, otherwise democracy would degenerate into monocracy. Despite all its shortcomings, democracy is and remains, as Sir Winston Churchill has so aptly put it, the least unsatisfactory of all forms of governments. In the memorable words of the great American Jurist Justice Frankfurter, “Democracy is always a beconing goal, not a safe harbor. For freedom is an unremitting endeavor, never a final achievement”. That is why it has been so aptly said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The political, fundamental and basic human rights are natural birthrights of every free citizen and are so fundamental and basic to the very existence of a civilized society that they can never be abrogated. The basic human rights enshrined in the hearts of a free people are embodied in a constitution as fundamental rights.
The state exists to promote justice among men, to help men to become better human beings, to unleash their creative capacities for good and to restrain their propensity to do evil. The despot and a despotic state are but the end product of a progressive degeneration that begins when ambition usurps the rule or reason. The closer the judgment of the people approximate unanimity, the greater the degree of consent secured for any action or policy. The principle of majority rule never demands that we abandon all qualitative judgment in favor of a quantitative method. It would be dangerous to do so. In that event, it will be indistinguishable from tyranny and the tyranny of a majority, as our own history tells us, is sometimes no less cruel or unjust indeed, may be more so, than tyranny of a single individual. What the democratic form of government demands is not submission to the will of the majority. We are obligated to submit to the decision of the majority not because the decision represents a numerically superior will but because it represents the best judgment of the society. It is not because that the will of many should prevail over the will of few, but rather upon the principle that the judgment of the many is likely to be superior to the judgment of the few. As Aristotle said,
“For the many when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good. Hence the many are better judges than a single man for some understand one part, some another, and among them they understand the whole”.
The principle of democracy and majority rule is founded upon the belief that the widest possible popular discussion and participation in the formulation of policy is likely to yield wiser decision than a discussion limited to the few. The decision recorded by the majority vote may then be fairly said to represent not a portion of the society but the whole people. Moreover discussion and deliberations in a democracy are a continuous process and no decision is regarded as irrevocable and it always remains open for the minority to become the majority through the instruments of if it is allured by the majority rule. The democratic process is designed to determine by popular discussion and decision the choice of the best means to active the common good.
There is no doubt that the foundations of the Constitution have been shaken by the indifference of the people, corruption of the politicians and the negligence and callousness of the intelligentsia. There are times in a nation’s history when inaction and silence can be a culpably wrong. It is not the Constitution, which has failed the people, but it is our chosen representatives who have failed the Constitution and the people. Joseph Story, the eminent jurist said, “architects of consummate skill and fidelity have created the structure: its foundations are solid; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order: its defense are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly or corruption or negligence of its only keepers-the people. They fall when the wise are banished from public councils because they dare to be honest and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them”. After Liberation we have spent nine precious years out of twenty under Martial Law in some form or other. Democracy sustains itself by its own inherent strength through trials and errors as it has done in other democratic countries of the world.
Today the word “democracy” has been devalued and it has come to be identified merely with adult franchise, i.e. the right to be governed by the elected representatives of the people. Democracy in this sense is quite different from freedom. You may have democracy without freedom; and you may have freedom without democracy. There are several totalitarian States which are democratic in the sense that their rulers are elected by the people and which actually use the word “Democratic” in the very name of their State. But their political set-up is characterized by the very negation of freedom; they allow only their party to function and do not permit the right to dissent. The claim that the elected representatives are entitled to ignore or abrogate the basic human rights as an expression of “ the democratic will of the people”, is they very foundation of all fascist and totalitarian government. A government which does not recognize inalienable human freedoms and which holds the lives, the liberty and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute and unlimited control, is after all but a despotism. “Democracy” is the dwelling place which man has built for the spirit of liberty. Intruders have seized the place. A democracy in which the spirit of liberty does not reside is a morgue.
History affords constant vindications of the principles that the human being precisely because he is human and bas a personality and individuality of his own-must be permitted to enjoy the basic human rights which the State should be powerless to take away. First, all great art and literature have flourished best during periods of freedom or men who yearned for freedom have given them to the world although they might have had the misfortune to live under autocratic regimes. Liberty has proved most conducive to the flowering of the human spirit, and it has been the most humanizing and civilizing force in the crowded story of man. Secondly, men have always been inspired to make the costliest sacrifices at the altar of liberty. They have laid down their lives in defense of freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of conscience and religion. The spirit of liberty has stirred great Pacts and Composers. While the finest pages of history bear witness to the glory of freedom, it can not be gainsaid that the nose counting method, which is unavoidable in a democracy, has very serious shortcomings, particularly in underdeveloped countries suffering from poverty and illiteracy.
It is a reflection on the drawbacks of democracy that the happiest periods which civilized man has known have been under benign and enlightened rulers who were not elected on the basis of adult franchise.
Freedom is fragile and man has known so little of it in his entire existence on earth. During thirty-four centuries of recorded history only a few generations have lived under the rules of law and civil liberty. History has witnessed kaleidoscopic changes, but one factor has remained significantly constant. At every point of time throughout the past and right up to the present, the majority of men have always lived under political conditions, which spelt the very negation of true freedom. Even today out of a world population of 5,000 million the majority of men live under governments, which deny them personal liberty and the right to dissent. Barely one-sixth of the 189 member countries of the United Nations enjoys freedom of the press. The tyranny of the State of men either born, appointed or elected to power is as old as time. Civil liberty and political freedom are, by contrast attained only by mature societies: Neither historicaqully, nor geographically, can free democracy be regarded as the normal way of organizing nations. Government by majority under the rule of law and with freedom of opposition and dissent is an exceptional human achievement. The mere fact that the elected representatives of the people govern the country is no guarantee that the basic human rights will be respected. Some of the worst tyrannies in history and even today-and some of the most ruthless suppressions of the voice of dissent are to be found in countries where the legislature consists of the elected legislators who have cither abolished, or have acquiesced in the abolition of, civil liberties. It is the people’s representatives who have tried to violate freedom of the press. The circumstances that an action is taken with the consent of the majority does not carry an assurance that the action will be wise or just the majority verdict resulted in Christ being crucified and Socrates being ordered to drink hemlock. Even sincerity of purpose avails nothing, since the important point is not that you act according to your lights but that your lights must be luminous. God faring men supported and administered the cruel institution of the Inquisition during the Middle Ages; and perfectly honest men were parties to the brining alive of innocent women as witches in Europe and helpless widows in India. Alluding to this act of monumental ingratitude and injustice the eminent English jurist Lord Acton, After a profound examination of historical process, comes to one central conclusion; the conflict, within democracy; between abiding law and arbitrary power.
“The fate of every democracy of every government based on the sovereignty of the people, depends on the choice it makes between these opposite principles; absolute power on the one hand, and on the other the restraints of legality and the authority of tradition. It must stand or fall according to its choice”.
An independent judiciary is the very heart of a republic and Rule of law is the only safeguard for sustaining democracy. In these days when the pernicious influence of politicians has polluted almost all spheres of activity, the reputation of democratic institution has been tarnished and their credibility steadily corded one institution which has remained unsullied is the judiciary. Politicians have been polluted most and public servants at all levels have also fallen prey to all kinds of vices. The only institution which has so far resisted the vices and kept its sold intact has been the judiciary. While the judges still, as a class, perform far better than the other public services and the political cadres, delinquency has been steadily invading the inner fiber of our robed brethren. The bar has lost its finer values and the Bench is slowly surrendering. Unless society’s morals rise, our robed brethren can not remain immune for long to quote Jefferson, “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.” There has been systematic tampering and interference with judicial independence by the executive by various dubious methods of influence, pressure, allurements, transfer, undermining their security of service and other conditions.
No judge can be expected to act without fear or favor with a sword of Damocles hanging over-head and more so, when he is dependent upon the executive for small favor. In the third would countries the situation relating to judiciary has gradually gone from bad to worse. Lord Brocton, A great English jurist, has said. “The judges are not under man but under law and under god” Lord Atkin’s memorable dissent in the famous liversidgs’s case has now become the most respected guiding principle for judicial independence. The memorable words were, “It has been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty the executive.” The day when the highest judiciary ceases to be independent, democracy and rule of law will collapse. Although the basic human rights are written in the constitution but where there is no independent court to enforce them, they shall remain a historical document to be preserved and seen in a glass-case only. In the memorable words of Sir Winston Churchill while speaking in the House of Commons as the Prime Minister of England. “The principles of complete independence of the judiciary from the executive is the foundation of many things in our life. The judge has not only to do justice between man and men, he has to ensure that administration conforms with the law and to adjudicate upon the legality of the exercise by the executive of its powers”. At the end of the first World War, President Wilson declared that the world must be made safe for democracy but upto now we could only make it comparatively safe for conferences and seminars like the present one. The judiciary maintains the necessary balance and social equilibrium in the society but for which there would be utter chaos and anarchy in the country. So supreme was the value of law that Napoleon said, “I will go down to posterity not by the battles I have fought and won, but by the code I have given to France”. One of the great Islamic ruler and a great scholar himself said, “the great tragedy of our times is that man will not be human”.
Democracy and freedom are not synonymous. Committee franchise may merely amount to right to choose your tyrants. In Lord Hailsham’s words, you may have “Elective Dictatorship”. Man has been called a rational animal, but this definition was given to man by man himself in a characteristic moment of self-aggrandizement. In the words of Lord Keynes, “ Man will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives.” Dr. Adenauer, the former Chancellor of West Germany, remarked, “in creating man, God had hit upon a very poor compromise. If he had made men less intelligent, he would have been easier to govern.” This remark neatly sums up the dilemma of democracy. It is true that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. But it is true, in even a deeper sense, that etc responsibility is also part of the price of liberty. Excessive authority, without liberty, is intolerable: but excessive liberty, without authority and without responsibility, soon becomes equally intolerable. De oequeville made the profound observation that liberty con not stand alone but must be paired with a companion virtue, liberty and morality, liberty and law, liberty and justice: liberty and the common good, liberty and civil responsibility.
“In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers”. The euphoria on the victory of liberal democracy over the command economies is largely misplaced. There is as yet no peace dividend. The world is nowhere near the end of convulsion and turbulence, which made this century one of the meanest, cruelest and bloodiest in human history. The same forces, which shattered the dream for a Marxist never-never-land, have also rendered capitalism obsolescent. Unfittingly the world has already stumbled into the post-capitalist era. The quest for social justice and equitable order for the poor and deprived remains as elusive as ever. There are more poor people today that the total world population in the mid-nineteenth century when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto. There are more hungry people now than ever. The world is witnessing a colossal wastage of human resources. Unacceptable levels of joblessness are undermining the social and political fabrics not only in developing countries but also in affluent societies. The rate of unemployment in developing countries like Bangladesh (about 47 percent of total available work force) far exceeds the catastrophic heights of joblessness during the Great Depression (about 18.2 percent in the U.S.A). The collapse of communism does not mean that there will be no new ideology to rally the deprived, the disadvantaged and the hungry. In the Cold War era, the threat of extremism came from mainly one ideology in the left. Liberal democracy today is likely to be besieged by a plethora of extremist ideologies from both the right and left of the mainstream. The disenchantment with representative institutions, which gave, births to partitocrazia (the dictatorship of established parties) and the cartels of politicians and lobbyists against voters and taxpayers is widespread in both affluent and developing societies. The pangs and trauma of poverty in the post capitalist society are much more poignant and agonizing than ever. For the poor, it is excruciatingly painful to reconcile with the shame of stark deprivation in a world basking in glittering abundance and extraordinary potentialities. The problems of poverty, however, do not remain confined to the poor themselves or the societies in which they live. As the UN Good governance Report 1993 rightly stressed: The real threat in the next few decades is that global poverty will begin to travel without passport, in many unpleasant forms: drugs, diseases, terrorism, migration. Poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere”. Poverty is both a consequence as well as a cause of environmental degradation. In the context of struggle for survival, immediate requirements of the poor tend to overwhelm any concern for the environmental future. The pressures of poverty and the consequential environmental stresses have resulted in the rising incidence of natural disasters and multiplication of the number of victims. As the Brandt Commission rightly pointed out “... generally these pressures are local. Today the scale of our intervention in nature is increasing and the physical effects of our decision will spill across national frontiers”. However, the loud emergencies of the environment such as global warming and ozone depletion should not detract our attention from the silent emergencies of poverty (such as water pollution, land degradation and environmental diseases.)
On balance the recent shifts in the post-capitalist society are not wholly unfavorable to developing countries. Some of these changes have actually opened new windows of opportunities for economic transformation. Historically countries developed, if they possessed more natural resources, were initially rich and enjoyed the advantages of having higher capital per head as well as superior technology and skills. But with globalization and emergence of what Drucker describes as “Knowledge Society”, the modernization of a developing society is now feasible mainly on the basis of education and skills of the labor force. There are now real opportunities of leap-forging the stages of development ad telescoping the process of industrialization. Most of the governments in the Third World have now recognized the futility of resisting the process of integration with the global economy. This realization has facilitated significant structural reforms, which have dramatically enhanced the efficiency and competitiveness of their economies. Finally, the disintegration of command economies has exposed the perversities and hollowness of big governments compared with free market economic process. The costs of bureaucratic failures have been minimized and a new stage has been set for the flowering of the individual initiative and enterprise.
Despite these promising changes, the odds of economic development should not be underestimated. The forces that created the widening gap between the affluent and developing societies did not originate in the Third World. They are the products of industrial societies. Underdevelopment in underdecdoped and developing countries is not an original state, it was created by the developed countries themselves. The process of interaction between developing and affluent societies has often been oversimplified. The widening gap between these societies was not produced by economic exploitation of imperial powers alone. The disequilibria of underdevelopment arose mainly from the incomplete transfer of technology of the North to the south. While the North readily sold the know how as well as the medicines for reducing mortality rate, it did not transfer the technology for raising the productivity of industry and agriculture which was essential for supporting the increased population during the demographic transition. Environmental problems originated from profligate use of natural resources by the developed countries. Because of the disequilibria in the world economic order, the rich in the affluent societies are getting richer whereas the absolute number of the poor in the developing countries is swelling.
It is highly unlikely that most of the developing countries will be able to raise the resources for providing and maintaining minimum physical and social infrastructure required for sustainable development. To contain population growth and provide minimum health care facilities, expenditure on health alone in developing countries requires to be raised by four times of the current expenditure. Likewise, an enormous investment is needed to provide minimum standard of physical infrastructure. The reduction of confessional aid flow (ODA) from the affluent societies to developing countries will, therefore, be a serious blow to their hope for economic growth necessary to reduce poverty and improve living conditions. Of late, there has been considerable debate on the role of foreign aid. Undeniably, there are many instances of inefficient utilization of external assistance. Aid fatigue in the affluent societies is, therefore, understandable. However, sub-optimal use of aid is not merely attributable to incapacity and rent-seeking in the recipient countries, the political and economic compulsions of the donors themselves have played their part as well. Aid is still viewed differently in many ways by the political realities of the cold war as well as the internal Governance of the donors. First, political considerations divert aid to middle and high-income countries. Low-income countries generally receive relatively much less aid than those, which do not deserve aid on economic considerations alone. Secondly, the most generous per capita allocation of aid does not necessarily go to the poorest countries. Thirdly, donor countries for promoting their commercial and strategic interests use a substantial part of aid. Tied aid, which constitutes for promoting their commercial and strategic interests. Tied aid, which constitutes approximately two thirds of all bilateral assistance, forces the recipients to buy goods and services from donor countries at a non-competitive price. Despite these limitations, aid has played a seminal role in various sectors. For example, economic assistance to Bangladesh has succeeded in promoting a highly successful population-planning program, in accelerating agricultural production in construction of urgently needed rural infrastructure and somewhat in alleviation of poverty. It is necessary to replicate the areas where success has been achieved rather than using aid as an instrument of political manipulation. The long-term political and social benefits are likely to outweigh short-term fiscal burden on donors. Of course, aid by itself can never be a sufficient condition for development. The impetus for growth must come from within. Fascinated by the initial successes of command economies and alarmed by widespread market failures, the Governments in developing countries opted for big government with an overwhelming concentration of power in the hands of central government and an elaborate network of prohibitions, rules and regulations. The Governments forgot that they were supposed to manage the country’s business and not the business of the country. The resultant massive government failure in developing countries vindicated the dire warning of the fourteenth century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun: “Commercial activity on the part of the rulers is harmful to his subjects.” The unsatisfactory performance of the monopolistic public utilities has stifled the potentialities of growth. Because of ever-increasing bureaucratic failures and the appalling inefficiencies and losses of state-owned enterprises, the process of development inevitably involves the ordeal of undoing what has been laboriously done in the past: decrease regulation, privatize the public sector enterprises, and reduce the size of the governments. A small government however does not necessarily imply a weak government. The developing countries need more government and a lean but strong government that can and does govern. Market economy cannot work in an institutional vacuum. It presupposes a strong government that can ensure rule of law, accountability, transparency and predictability in its day to day operations. Effective governance is a necessary condition for sustaining economic growth. The role of the state, however, cannot be curtailed overnight. It has to be done through the democratic process in stages.
Good governance, however, cannot be imposed from above. There is no single recipe for good governance. The erosion of public confidence in the governmental systems is not unique to developing countries, it is equally true about affluent societies which are also trying to reinvent the governments. Good governance emerges through a process of trial and error. Given he immense diversity of cultures and political forms, Bangladesh must find its own way to reconcile conflicting interest groups and weave them into a cohesive state organization. Historical experience indicates that democratic governments tend to be more responsive to the needs of the people. Democracy is not, however, a one shot affair. It is not a matter of single decision or a hurriedly arranged election. It is a long and arduous process. Constant renewal of democratic values is needed to ensure that vested interest groups do not usurp levers of power. Democracy allows maximum influence of the people on the decisions that affect their lives. However, even democratic institutions in nation-states have turned out to be too big for the small. There are always social groups who are excluded wholly or partially from the polity: the very young, the very old, the disabled and women with heavy domestic commitments. For millions of underdogs all over Bangladesh, political participation is a luxury. Affirmative actions are, therefore, needed to reduce the discriminations against the socially disadvantaged. Legal systems need to be modernized to fit with changing socio-economic circumstances, bureaucratic constraints need to be reduced and discriminatory social norms and practices must be discouraged. Even this is not sufficient. The disadvantaged groups will have to be empowered through both formal and informal education, and barriers to women’s participation in the development process need to be removed. There is abundant empirical evidence to suggest that when the window of opportunity is opened to them to be removed the poor are indeed efficient users of resources. Another precondition of good governance through democratic process is decentralization of power. First, more authority needs to be transferred from capital cities to local governments in regions, towns and villages. Secondly, people’s organizations and non-governments organizations (NGO) can play a significant role in empowering the poor. Innovative organizations in Bangladesh such as NGOs can at best supplement the governments, they can never be substitutes of government. The real challenge of good governance is, therefore, to blend an effective and compassionate national government with local governments, people’s organizations, NGOs and other independent civic societies. This is not easy to achieve. It will have to be a long-drawn process of change led by people. Ultimately, good governance will have to be nourished and sustained by the people themselves. At this crucial juncture of history, patriotism is not enough. Patriotism is the willingness to die for one’s won country. What we need now is enlightened citizenship there cannot be that responsible commitment which in the last analysis holds together the body politic. Citizenship means an active commitment to one’s community, to one’s country as well as to the world at large. Such citizens will not be the passive recipients of change. They will shape their own future in the light of their vision and conviction.

Good Governance 02

In recent years it has become increasingly obvious that government has become too cumbersome and too fragmented to deal with contemporary problems. Nothing short of sweeping reorganization is needed if government is to keep up with the needs of the public. Political leaders promise to devise more efficient, economical, purposeful and manageable government. They are giving greater prominence to Democratic reform. Few governments have not instigated elaborate inquiries into the uneven performance and malfunctioning of their Democratic systems. Interest has been renewed by recent public policy failures. In operationalizing their policies, governments have run into trouble. They have found Democratic arrangements obstructive and resistant to innovation, especially institutional bureaucracies bent on going their own separate ways. Political dreams have been rudely shattered by Democratic realities. Political mobilization, governmental intervention and public instruments alone have been inadequate to master social problems. Existing Democratic capacity is unequal to the tasks imposed on it. Bureaucratization that worked so well in the past has developed severe dysfunction and pathologies. New social objectives require a new Democratic technology. People angered by policy failures, rising costs, misadministration and low productivity look to Democratic reform for solutions. Democratic reform is based on three premises-that government will play an increasingly important part in the life of society, that government needs effective machinery can be designed on sound rational principles. While Democratic reform includes the institutionalization of modern managerial technology, it is much more. First, it entails a thorough reconstruction of the machinery of government which in effect means deciding what activities government should perform directly, how they should be allocated among different leaves of government, how the should be distributed between different types of public organization, and which public organizations should be self-contained. Second it aims at systematic transformation not piecemeal change, permanent alterations not purely cosmetic touches, in structure, territorial organization, budget management, planning processes, and personnel practices to reduce corruption, incompetence and red tape, Third, the different sectors and programs are rationalized and reorganized for more effective performance. Fourth, the machinery of government is simplified and streamlined to eliminate unnecessary duplication, reduce inconvenience and minimize parasitism. The whole package is considered necessary to combat the tendency of governments to add to existing arrangements, to patch up and temporize until they overload the circuits, instead of redesigning the whole system. Confusion compounds confusion. Unclear lines of authority, fragmentation, lack of coordination, jurisdictional disputes, ambiguity and inconsistency, and difficulty in pinpointing responsibility impede national goals.
Eventually, the system cannot manage its burdens and parts actually fail when most needed. It is on these that reformers concentrate. They have to design machinery where none has existed before. They have to reconstruct outmoded systems. They have to refurbish sluggish, inert, incompetent, corrupt, defective public organizations. Governments forced to act by relentless pressure consequent on increasing demands for more and better public goods and services as a result of population growth, economic progress, industrialization, and urbanization, combined with changing views of government and public administration. Increasingly insiders have begun to take the initiative and suggest reforms based on their own research and prescriptions. Countries should prefer a different approach, a permanent rather than a temporary and hoc arrangement. They have institutionalize reform by establishing a general reform authority to conduct continuous surveys, decide reform priorities, provide assistance to operating agencies, and monitor reform efforts. They know their own societies well enough to discern whether foreign models are worth adopting. They know how their own government operates and what is politically feasible. They assume leadership in democratic reform and decide disputes. Where Democratic reform has been institutionalized this way, six features have been emphasized. First, a national planning apparatus has been created to help government formulate public and allocate public resources. the planners identify national needs and priorities and draft long-term plans of national objectives and targets. Second, public finance has been modernized to assure government of adequate and manage public debts. Tax administration, budgeting systems and accounting methods receive priority, particularly problems of tax evasion and avoidance, corruption, runaway inflation, excessive foreign borrowing and cash flow. Third, uniform personnel management principles have been codified and enacted to reduce patronage, set minimum job qualifications, establish career systems, standardize employment conditions, and increase in-service training. Fourth, the machinery of government has been reconstructed and government activities regrouped in a rational and consistent fashion. Fifth, government power has been decentralized and deconcentrated to regional and local levels. Sixth, modern management practices have been introduced going well beyond traditional organization and methods. Altogether, they have been conventional rather than innovative programs, imitative and adaptive rather than creative and original. Perhaps for this reason, they have not been so controversial as attempts to overhaul substantive functions such as the legal system, land utilization, public works construction and social service delivery, where vested interests have defied reform.
Plans and blueprints are not reforms until they are activated public opinion supports them, resources are invested in making them work, and resistance to them is overcome. The Democratic state is not instrumental but integrated with social change. People should not be excluded but involved at all stages, educated on the issues and encouraged to participate and contribute. If we cannot abolish, reduce or limit government appreciably because of the demands we place on it, we can at least try to improve its performance. In this, no one ought to be excluded and no idea ignored. Bureaucratic revitalization by itself is insufficient; bureaucratic habits die-hard. Simple remedies will not do. Contemporary Democratic problems require new approaches, new organizational designs, new laws new commitments, new relationships, new attitudes, new inventions anything that promises to move sluggish Democratic systems in new directions and revitalize inert institutions.
Reform has had only limited impact, not so much because the reforms have been wrong, the strategies incorrect or the reformers unqualified, but simply because there has been insufficient support for Democratic reform. The reformers have been unable to combat overwhelming odds, and once out of their hands, their reforms have been emasculated. Reformers find they have no power, position, status to influence those who can change things, or they propose inappropriate, complex, costly or inoperable reforms, or they are misunderstood and their proposals misinterpreted. Often, they cannot explain why they fail. Democratic systems are complex to manage and reformers cannot control they many variables that shape them. They are inherently slow- moving and difficult to change fundamentally without coercion. Progress occurs fitfully and has to be measured in decades, not years.
We are to take into account four items, each consists of several subsections, organized under the categories of Innovation, Resistance to Change, Democracy and Good governance.
(1) Innovation is an ancient idea. This is evident from the debate, which took place in nineteenth century regarding the management of the economic system. Interestingly enough, innovation was not considered then as an independent problem. The advancement in scientific knowledge and ever-increasing use of sophisticated technology has been brought about by the accelerating pace of change in the life of modern man. The role of innovation in an organizational environment cannot be overemphasized, far less ignored. Social scientists, noticing the present trend comments: We will increasingly have to learn to make existing organizations capable of rapid and continuing innovation. Broadly speaking, in the literature the term “innovation” has been used in three different contexts. In one it is synonymous with invention; that is it refers to a creative process whereby two or more existing concepts or entities are combined in some novel way to produce configuration not previously known by the person involved.
Innovation is a complex activity which proceeds from the conceptualization of a new idea to a solution of the problem and then to the actual utilization of a new item of economic or social value. Innovation is not a single action but a total process of interrelated sub processes. An innovation is “any thought, behavior or thing that is new because it is qualitatively different from existing forms.” Victor Thompson provides a comprehensive and meaningful definition when he says, “By innovation is meant the generation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas, process, product, or services. Innovation therefore implies the capacity to change or adapt.” James Q. Wilson, says,” An innovation (or more precisely, a major innovation, since we are not concerned with trivial changes) is a ‘ fundamental, change in a ‘significant, number of tasks. In fact, Thompson’s definition combines precisely the three most crucial aspects of any innovative process; i.e., generation of an idea, its acceptance, and finally its implementation, which culminates the process. Wilson, thinking in the context of an organization, is concerned about the end product of an innovation process, i.e., the effect of innovation in the organizational tasks. By specially emphasizing two terms, “fundamental” and “significant,” Wilson underscores the vital fact that without fundamental changes in a number of significant tasks, innovation in an organizational context cannot be meaningful.
Modern democratic organizations are built around the Weberian concept of monocratic organization. The Weberian concept of an organization, which is generally known as bureaucracy, holds that,
“(1) There is a great inequality among organizational participants in their status, abilities, and
contributions to the organization, and rewards,

(2) The organizations machinary is simple and within the grasp of a few people,

(3) The person at the top of the organization is assumed to be omniscient and issues all orders in the
organization,

(4) These orders are classified downward by successive levels of subordinates, so that the
delegation process is complete,

(5) Because there is only one source of legitimate authority in the organization, conflict is not seen
as legitimate, and thus bargaining coalitions and other conflict-settling activities are
illegitimate.”
“Moreover, in a monocratic organization centralized control is exercised over all resources. The establishment of a reward system, which is structured to encourage hierarchical competition, stimulates conformity rather than innovation. There is, to a great extent, an overemphasis on certainty when decisions are made in a democratic organization. In order to introduce innovations in democratic organizations, several things need to be done. One of the first requirements is the modification of the rigid, caste-oriented structure into a more loose and fixable one. This necessitates the refashioning of the reward system based on extrinsic monetary emoluments and overemphasis on power and status to a situation where satisfaction can be found in professional growth and the esteem of knowledgeable colleagues. Conflict, instead of being looked at as a subversive phenomenon, which must be suppressed at all cost, must be encouraged since item plies pluralism and forces coping with and searching for solutions. Conflict can therefore encourage innovation. The tendency to institutionalize a centralized control system of men and materials as is found in a democracy is not congenial to novel solutions, which are normal in an innovative organization. But it might appear threatening to people with democratic orientations that are more accustomed to follow the conventional ways of doings. This innate conservatism might hinder a democratic organization to be receptive to new ideas and practices. In short, structural flexibility, toleration for some autonomy, and protection and cultivation of “innovational enclaves” are structural perquisites for emergence of innovation within a democracy. For the successful introduction of innovation in an organization the innovation must be aware of the following:
a. The new idea must be satisfactory to the innovator.
b. The prestige of the innovator has a bearing on the acceptance, which depends upon his past record.
c. The personality of the innovator also plays an important role toward acceptance of his
innovation.
d. The values embodied in a new idea are also influential toward the acceptance of an innovation.
e. Innovation should not be haphazard.
f. If the innovation is made acceptable to the informal and formal leaders through them it will receive the support of the majority.
g. The advantages of innovation must be made readily ascertainable to the potential acceptors.
The qualities that are required of a person when he is in charge of introducing innovations in a democratic organization are really astounding. It requires an unusual combination of qualities: “a creative but pragmatic imagination; psychological security and an autonomous nature; an ability to trust others and to earn the trust of others. And along with these great energy and determination, a sense of timing; skill in organizing; and a willingness and ability to be Machiavellian when that is what the situation requires.” To facilitate the process of successful introduction and implementation of innovations the following conditions need to be present. There must exist in the higher tiers some” advocates” of new programmers, procedures, methods and organizations, plus a sufficient number of “initial adopters” who would support the “advocates” as the change agents. What is operationally important is that some minimum proportion often a small but significant minority must exist before innovation can be effectively introduced and carried on. It must be proportionally introduced and carried on. It must be proportionally large enough to sustain the innovational fermentation until the point of adoption. Lee argues that special attention to the following positive features may be helpful. These are “ middle and lower-middle class backgrounds, indicative of a drive for achievement; high merit in terms of competitive organizational activities; youth; sufficient educational background are political training, and exposure.
Organizations are great resisters of change. They are conservative in nature, resisting change and the introduction of new patterns, which can be attributed to the relatively static systems, which operate within an organization. Resistance to change is a universal phenomenon. Change is always confronted by strong forces holding it in check and sharply circumscribing the capacity of organizations to react to new conditions. Change often endangers careers and disturbs vested interest generating resistance against it. As the historian of industries Alfred Chandler indicates, change seems to require a crisis or a change of management. Resistance, in short, is the most characteristic individual and group reaction to change. Many factors contribute to its emergence and sustenance. Resistance occurs at three levels:30 individual, group, and organizational.31 Interactions between and among these levels must be understood as factor or factors which cause resistance to one level and may do the same for another level. There are several Conditions Conducive to Resistance
1. Resistance can be expected if the nature of the change is not made clear to the people who are going to be influenced by the change.
2. Different people will see different meanings in the proposed change.
3. Resistance can be expected when those influenced are caught in a jam between strong forces
pushing to make the change and the strong forces determining them against making the change.
4. Resistance may be expected to the degree that the persons influenced by the change have pressure put upon them to make it, and will be decreased to the degree that these some persons
are able to have some “say” in the nature and direction of the change.
5. Resistance may be expected if the change ignores the established institutions in the group.
Lippitt and others present four cogent reasons, paying particular attention to human ego, as to why change is resisted:
1. Reluctance to admit weakness.
2. Fear of failure or awkwardness in trying to initiate a new practice or behavior pattern.
3. A fatalistic expectation if previous attempts to change was unsuccessful.
4. A fear of losing some current satisfaction.
The causes of failure to change the behavior and/or structure of organizations when such rigidity turns out to be disadvantageous or fatal can be grouped into three categories with several subcategories within some of them:
1. Acknowledged collective benefits of stability.
2. Calculated opposition to change.
a. Prevailing advantage.
b. Protection of quality.
c. Psychic costs of change.
d. Tunnel vision.
e. “Brave New World.”
3. Inability to change.
a. Resource limitations.
b. Sunk cost.
c. Accumulation of official constraints on behavior,
d. Unofficial and unplanned constraints on behavior.
e. Inter-organizational agreements.
Looking beyond individuals, groups, and organizations to trace the reason behind resistance, a few have been interested to discern and analyze the impact of social systems and cultural heritage on the individual which may lead him to resist change efforts.
Once the causes are known which trigger off resistance to any change of the status quo or the existing system, then the obvious next step that follows is to seek for clues which will ultimately result in the minimal amount of resistance. In other words, we have to create an environment in which changes can be introduced by carefully neutralizing the resistant elements within an organization. The theme that has been floating in the literature to overcome resistance to change is participation. If people are given the opportunity to take part in change efforts, then the extent of hostility toward anew program will considerably lessen. Several experiments showed that participation works better than imposed changes. Those who will be affected by the change must not only be heard from but also be listened to. In this way many misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the nature and extent of change will be clarified in the minds of affected individuals. At the same time, contacts between change agents and the changes will also help to establish a rapport between the two, which is one of the crucial preconditions of any successful change program.
Is has been suggested that changes which call for far-reaching alterations in the power, position, and status of the individuals in the organization should be introduced slowly. One of the principal reasons for hostility to anything new that is comes as a threat to security and status. To overcome the feeling of fear of the unknown in the individual mind when change is introduced, one must proceed with care and caution. Resistance to change will be minimal if there is support for the change from within the organization. To gain the support of the individuals, several things can be done. The benefits accruing from the said change can be elaborated and explained at length. Support of the intellectuals and other professionals is also crucial in this regard. As far as possible, individuals working inside the organization should introduce changes. There are evidences that people tend to reject changes easily, which are either planed or introduced by “outsiders” not belonging to the organization. Any change effort, which threatens the long-established values and ideals of an organization, will encounter resistance of a high magnitude. It must be understood that a particular change may not be suitable for all cultures. The role of culture in any change effort is crucial as it moulds the norms, values, and ideals of individuals. These individuals, in turn, man organizations and, through their socialization process in the work environment, form and sustain values and norms, which greatly influence their work habits and patterns. Human associations are probably the most important reasons for resistance to change. If the change agents take time to understand the context in which the change is introduced, then there is a greater probability for the successful initiation of the change. The change agent must recognize the extent of influence the small groups, cliques, or individuals wield and how they fell about the proposed change before going any further. The change agent will have to recognize the resistant factors in the process of change. The knowledge of resistant factors will put the change agent in a better position to contain the development of resistance or use approaches to overcome the resistance when it does develop.
We have discussed the problems of introducing innovations in bureaucratic organizations and how those problems can be overcome. Here we wish to take up certain other concomitants of bureaucratic organizations for discussion. The negative connotation of the term “bureaucracy” is widely accepted both by scholars and laymen, which indicates the emotional coloration given to organizational unresponsiveness toward change. Resistance to change in relation to specialization, communication system, and bureaucratic personality. The bureaucratic organization is a specialized complex structure of technical interdependence superimposed upon a strict hierarchy of authority. It is a system of superior and subordinate influence upon the subordinate. Individuals can become a source of resistance to change in two ways. Individuals and groups within particular specialties may have a fear not only of loss of prestige but of decreased usefulness after the change. Bureaucratic organizations, like other organizations, over a period of time, induce members to become socially specialized. Any suggestion for change may come as a threat to this social cooperative relationship and may not be welcome.
Communication networks have limited usefulness to foster change. These are mostly one way, top-down directive carriers and have less to learner for the opinions of people in the downstairs organized communication comprises a complexity of subtle habits, attitudes, and standardized expressions whose smooth and more or less unconscious employment is essential to effective and comfortable collaboration. A new plan disrupts all these making elaboration difficult and encouraging misunderstanding. People just do not understand the real situation; if they did, they would not resist changes. This may not be true in its entirety, but the fact remains that communication, if utilized properly, can play a more meaningful role to bring about changes within an organization. Certain personal behavior patterns can also be detected among the democrats, which arise as a result of specialization and become ingrained with their personality characteristics. The growing imbalance between the rights of authority positions, on the one hand and the abilities and skills needed in a technological age, on the other, generates tensions and insecurity in the system of authority. People think of excessive resistance to change as an inherent feature of bureaucratic organization. New powerhouse and less competent lenders were more resistive to change than others. Because of their nature and functioning democracies are considered to be conservative structures oriented toward maintaining the external as well as internal status quo. Change always upsets an organization, irrespective of its nature. Some may welcome the upset because they found conditions restrictive or oppressive. But change in the status is likely to be opposed by many who do not want to be disturbed and who are uncertain of what the future may bring in its wake.
A basic factor in determining the success of the organization in resisting change is the amount of power the organization has in its environment. Individuals play leading roles to mould the internal environments in such a way as to make it difficult to introduce change. Individuals in the organization are reinforced by their consistency in behavior in relationship to organizational norms. Yet organizations do change, both with respect to their external relationships and to their internal configurations. The pressure of the external environment necessitates the organization to change. Moreover, when most organizations become internally static and obsolete due to lack of change, thereby creating a problem of incongruence between the expectations and the requirement of the job, change of one type or another is introduced. Stresses inherent in democratic structures can lead to “dysfunction” and ultimately to change. To minimize resistance to change in the democratic organization, several elements should be given considerable attention and emphasis. These are leadership, communication participation, and training.
Without leadership support, no amount of effort on the part of others will make any change effort successful. The commitment and dedication of the leadership is one of the essential prerequisites for the success of any change program. The importance of effective communication needs hardly any more emphasis as an effective instrument for overcoming resistance. The role of participation is to bring about change. Change necessitates abandoning old ways and taking on new ones. This will arouse anxiety among some people’ periodic consultations with them may prove helpful. In this regard, training may become crucial. Training can prepare individuals to accept and perform adequately in different jobs winch require not only new skills but, more importantly, a different outlook and positive attitude. Training will be meaningful if it can ease the tension of transition and positively orient individuals to adapt to change.
Democracy, as an idea as well as the embodiment of a structural arrangement, has been staunchly defended as a necessity and at the same time vigorously condemned, which leads to underutilization of human potential and perpetuation of a not-so-healthy environment in the polity. As a result of controversies surrounding it, democracy has come to mean different things to different people. To laymen, it means the continuation of decorum, inefficiency, and abuse of power. To a sociologist, a democratic organization is one, which does not learn from its own mistakes and repeats them often. To a political scientist, Democracy mean a system of government where people all levels have their voices heard and given due consideration. To a structure found in modern countries with all the accompanying paraphernalia. Bureaucratic predominance is perhaps the outstanding feature of modern society. During the last two centuries, bureaucratization of organizations has been rather rapid. Bureaucracy is not a new phenomenon. It existed in elaborate forms thousands of years age Egypt and Rome and in rather sophisticated forms in China and India in ancient times. With the dawning of the modern era, the trend toward the process of bureaucratization has greatly accelerated. In contemporary society, bureaucracy has become a dominant institution indeed, the institution that epitomizes the modern era. Bureaucracy can be distinguished among several levels of analysis. These are: (1) the historical and technical reasons for the advancement of bureaucracy and its relation to the growth of modern state, especially in the Western countries; (2) the impact of the rule of law upon the functioning of bureaucratic organizations; (3) the occupational position and typical personal orientation of bureaucratic officials as a status group; (4) the consequence of bureaucratization in the modern world. Emergence of bureaucracy was due to:
1. The development of money economy
2. The increasing size of states and organizations
3. The impact of cultural, economic, and technological developments.
Though bureaucracies have existed in ancient times in non-money economies like Egypt, the beginning of extensive employment of officials in states and organizations made it imperative to provide them with salaries on a regular basis in order to neutralize any threat to the “master” as well as lessen the temptation to appropriate bureaucratic property for their own personal ends.
The qualitative and quantitative expansion of Democratic tasks eventually might facilitate the process of bureaucratization to an even greater degree. In the growth of wealth and property, particularly in the amassing of these corporations, so that the protection of property, the distribution of benefits to those adversely affected by the distribution of wealth and conflicts over this and the control of communication, all become foci for large-scale formal administration. Bureaucratic organization is technically superior to tall other forms of administration. “In precision, speed, lack of equivocation, knowledge of the documentary record, continuity, sense of discretion, uniformity of operation, system of subordination, and reduction of friction bureaucracy surpasses honorific and a vocational forms of administration.” Modern state exists where a political community possesses the following chacteristics: (1) an Democratic and legal order that is subject to change by legislation, (2) an Democratic apparatus that conducts official business in accordance with legislative regulation, (3) binding authority over all persons and over most actions taking place in the area of its jurisdiction, and (4) the legitimating to use force within area if coercion is either permitted or prescribed by the legally constituted government. Legal order, bureaucracy, compulsory jurisdiction over a territory and monopolization of the legitimate use of force are the essential characteristics of the modern state.
The organization, is defined as a social relationship that is either closed or limits the entrance of outsiders and develops regulations for activity which are enforced by a chief, possibly with an Democratic staff. Where the activities are continuously oriented toward some ends which are specified. Formal organization implies the distribution of power and domination, Power is defined in situation ally specific terms. “It is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own despite resistance. Domination is the probability that a command with a given specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” Domination involves a reciprocal relationship between rulers and ruled. For domination to be present in a relationship there must be: “(i) an individual who rules, regroup of rulers; (ii) an individual who is ruled, or a group that is ruled; (iii) the will of the rulers to influence the conduct of the ruled and an expression of that will (or a command); (iv) the evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of the objective degree of compliance with the command; (v) direct or indirect evidence of that influence in terms of the subjective acceptance with which the ruled obey the command.” Domination also requires an Democratic staff to execute commands, and conversely, all administration requires domination in that the power of command over the staff must be vested in an individual or group of individuals. To facilitate the strengthening and continuance of a system of domination, all Democratic organizations will be required to have individuals who: “(i) are accustomed to obey command; (ii) are personally interested in seeing the existing domination continue because they derive benefits there form; (iii) participate in that domination in the sense that the exercise of function is divided among them; and (iv) hold themselves in readiness for the exercise of these functions.”
Every system of domination attempts to establish and cultivate the belief in its legitimacy. Legitimacy plays a crucial role in an organization as continuous struggle takes place for control within it between and among individuals and groups. Because of the struggle for control, there will be a continuing need for the leadership to justify itself. Legitimating is an active process within an organization. The six principles of bureaucracy are:
1. There are fixed and official jurisdictional areas-ordered by rules, so that official duties are regular activities, based on the ends of the organization.
2. There is a firmly ordered hierarchy providing for the supervision of lower offices by specified higher ones. Lower officials have the right of appeal as a counter-balance to the regulated domination from above. Such offices are not ephemeral-they are fixed and then filled by successive incumbents.
3. The Management of office is based on written documents and a filing system hence clerks to keep the files.
4. Each specialized position demands specific training.
5. Official business should occupy the energies of the official full-time.
6. The rules of the bureaucracy demands relevant learning and expertise based in relevant academic disciplines.
The six principles behind the position of the officials are:
1. Office holding as a “vocation,” requiring a prescribed course of training, the passing of examinations to indicate quality, impersonality in the conduct of the office.
2. The official enjoys a social esteem in accordance with his rank in the hierarchy.
3. A superior authority appoints the official.
4. The official enjoys tenure (of office) for life.
5. Security is ensured for the official by the payment of a salary in accord with his status in the hierarchy (and a pension at the end of his service).
6. Career stages will characterize the official’s life and he will expect to be moved from less well paid to better paid offices with time.
Consequence of bureaucracy is alienation. Alienation is fairly common within a bureaucratic organization and can not be eradicated on a permanent basis. Secondly, it has been said that bureaucratization leads to a bastardized form of democracy, for not only are the democratic mass parties bureaucratically organized, but this leads to decline in the active share of the subjects in the government. And “the leveling of the governed in the face of the governing and bureaucratically articulated group, in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position both in fact and in form.” Thirdly, a fully developed bureaucracy implements a system of authority relationships that is practically indestructible. It becomes indispensable to the extent that everyone becomes so dependent upon it as if life would stop without it. Fourthly, an entrenched bureaucracy can serve any interest, Bureaucratic allegiance is to the authority above it; it matters little whether changes have taken place at the political level. Bureaucratic orientation, i.e. recruitment and training, also helps the bureaucrats to adapt quickly to changing situations. Fifthly and lastly, the modern bureaucratic system has leveling effect social and economic differences.
A bureaucratic organization produce unintended negative consequences. These are:
First, adherence to the rules, originally conceived as a means, becomes transformed into an end-in-itself; there occurs the familiar process of displacement of goals. Emphasis (on discipline) resulting from the displacement of the original goals develops into rigidities and an inability to adjust readily. Formalism, even ritualism, ensues an unchallenged insistence upon punctilious adherence to formalized procedures.
Second, over-concern with strict adherence to regulations, which induces timidity, conservatism and techniques.
Third, bureaucratic structure tends to produce esprit de corps and informal social organization, which typically develops in such situations often, leads the personnel to defend their entrenched interests rather than assist their clientele and elected higher officials.
Fourth, the personality pattern of the bureaucrat is nucleated around the norm of impersonality. Both this and the categorizing tendency, which develops from to dominant role of general, abstract rules, tend to produce conflict in the bureau curate’s contacts with the public or clientele.
Fifth, the bureaucrat, in part irrespective of his position within the hierarchy, acts as a representative of the power and prestige of the entire structure. This often leads to an actually or apparently domineering attitude, which may only be exaggerated by a discrepancy between his position within the hierarchy and his position with reference to the public.
Merton, drawing on other studies that has suggested that Individual personalities are molded by social roles, argues that:
(1) An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regulation.
(2) Such devotion to the rule leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes.
(3) This interferes with ready adoption under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules.
(4) Thus, the very elements, which conduce toward efficiency in general, produce inefficiency in specific instances. Members of the group who have not divorced themselves from the meanings, which the rules have for them, seldom attain full realization of the inadequacy.
These rules in time become symbolic in east, rather than strictly utilitarian. Conflict with the public can be found in a bureaucracy which ultimately results in unintended and dysfunctional consequences. These in turn produce resistance by the individuals to conform to the standardized behavioral patterns imposed upon them arbitrarily. The dysfunctional consequences of the model entail the use of more regulation, one should gradually find more and more dysfunction. Democracies never succeed in conquering the non-rational dimensions of organizational behavior. The latter remains at once indispensable to the continued existence of the system of coordination and at the same time the source of friction, dilemma, doubt, and ruin. In formal organizations, especially in large ones, informal norms become so pervasive that deviations from the formal rules and regulations over a period of time become not only acceptable but also institutionalized. The deviations tend to force a shift away from the purely formal system as the effective determinant of behavior. It leads to (1) a condition in which informal patterns buttress the formal, as through the manipulation of sentiment with the organization in favor of established authority; or (2) a condition wherein informal controls effect a consistent modification of formal goals.
There are relevant external environments and that may define the nature and constrain the activities of the organization. There is no escape for the members of he organization from bureaucratic pressure to conform to understand how people withstand and partially manage to control that pressure. The same kind of vicious circle can develop with hierarchical control and standardization. Wrapping themselves in the shrouds of nineteenth century political economy, some social scientists appear to be bent on resurrecting a dismal science. Instead of telling men how bureaucracy might be mitigated, they insist that it is inevitable. Instead of explaining how democratic patterns may, to some extent, be fortified and extended, they warn us that democracy cannot be perfect. Instead of controlling the disease, they suggest that we are deluded or more politely incurably romantic, for hoping to control it. The monolithic view organization and uniformity in rule application fails to provide satisfactory answers as to what happens when legitimacy of authority has to be established in the face of opposition and refusal to consent on the part of the governed.
In mock bureaucracy the rules are imposed on the group by some outside agency... Neither superiors nor subordinates identify themselves with or participate in the establishment of the rules nor do they regard them as legitimate. Thus the rules are not enforced, and both superiors and subordinates obtain status by violating them. In representative bureaucracy-rules are promulgated by experts whose authority is acceptable to all the members of the organization. Superiors and subordinates support the rules, which fit in with their values and confer status on those who conform. In the third type of bureaucracy, punishment-centered, the rules arise in response to the pressures either of management or workers. The attempt is made to coerce to other side into compliance. This type of bureaucracy emphasizes the elements of authority and command-hierarchy. Either superiors or subordinates consider the rules legitimate, and if conformity leads to a gain in status for one side this involve a loss of status for the other. The tension that exists between authority based on expertise and authority based on hierarchy and discipline within an organization. Punishment-centered bureaucracy clearly underscores the dilemma of an efficient organization based on rationally designed rules or procedures and the tension and conflict that develops when close supervision exists to enforce the rules. Thus, unanticipated consequences of bureaucratic functioning may follow. Rules have both negative and positive effects anticipated and unanticipated consequences. The authority systems based on different criteria, i.e., expertise, hierarchy and discipline. Local administrators are very loyal to the organization but with little commitment to specialized skills, and cosmopolitans have little loyalty to the organization but much commitment to their specialized skills. External and internal factors force a bureaucracy to make modifications in its structure and permit the perpetuation of certain informal norms. Rules and procedures, at least most of them, can encourage the achievement of organizational objectives and at the same time produce dysfunctions which may interfere with the organization’s capacity to undertake changes to continue functioning.
Changes are likely to be supported by individuals if they perceive that these changes will satisfy organizational needs. Such changes may, in turn, give rise to needs calling for additional adjustments. There are some of the conditions under which an organization is likely to open itself to new changes. These are, “(i) a minimum of employment security; (ii) a professional orientation towards the performance of duties; (iii) established work groups that command the allegiance of their members; (iv) the absence of basic conflict between work group and management; (v) organizational needs that are experienced as disturbing. “Maximum rationality in the organization, therefore, depends on the ability of operating official to assume the initiative in establishing informal relations and instituting unofficial practices that eliminate operational difficulties as they occur.”
Bureaucracy as a pat of the social system, which consists of a distinctive culture, and a system of shared values. The power struggle, consensus and cooperation are valued in the culture in order to maintain competition within an organization and this in turn leads to intricate intragroup or intergroup alliances which foster the existence of work-place norms. Bureaucracy is unavoidable. It is an extreme application of hierarchical structuring, centralizing of decision making and completely impersonal rules, which will tend to occur most where almost all uncertainty has been removed that is where environmental changes are likely to be made and the internal situation has over time become so well known to everyone in the organization, where uncertainty is considerable in terms of environmental changes. Bureaucracy is thus a pathological condition, for there is a tendency for centralization and rule making to become or to be taken as irreversible. “A bureaucratic organization is an organization that can not correct its behavior by learning from its error.” Bureaucracy is also one that is characterized by “vicious circles,” has the following underlying pattern:
1. The rigidity of task definition, task arrangements and the human relations network, results in a lack of communications among the groups.
2. The resulting difficulties, instead of imposing a readjustment of the model, are utilized by individuals and groups for improving their position in the power struggle within the organization.
3. Thus a new pressure is generated for impersonality and centralization, the only solution to personal privileges.
Change takes place in a bureaucratic organization as with time any type of organization must change, i.e., in order to survives.
1. Change in a bureaucratic organization must come from the top down and must be universalistic, i. c., encompass the whole organization en block--- (change) will wait until a serious question pertaining to an important dysfunction can be raised.
2. Because of the necessarily long delays, because of the amplitude of the scope it must attain, and because of the resistance it must overcome, change in bureaucratic organizations is a deeply felt crisis. Crisis is a distinctive and necessary clement of the bureaucratic system. It provides the only means of making the necessary adjustments. “ Development Administration,” refers to “the processes of guiding an organization toward the achievement of progressive political, economic, and social objectives, that are authoritatively determined in one manner or another. Development Administration aims at increasing living standards and integrating citizens into a sense of “nationness.” This is also a major function of the bureaucracy in most developing countries. Behavioral traits are not only enormously complex but vary considerably from one bureaucracy to another and from time to time, which make them difficult to diagnose in a confident manner. Although certain similarity is observable the behavior of bureaucrats varies widely in time and place, without there being any clear-cut pattern of development. Nor is this fact to be wondered at. The behavior of all persons in a particular cultural context is bound to be molded by the values and beliefs prevalent in that culture.”
During the last two decades, increasing emphasis has been given to the role of bureaucrats as development administrators in charge of fostering the economic growth of their respective countries in addition to their duties in the areas of law and order and revenue collection. This concern with economic growth has prompted many to compare the Democratic capabilities of different developing countries to successfully undertake, sustain, and achieve developmental plans and goals. Productivity, efficiency, and economy are much used words in this development administration approach. The main reason behind the growing importance of development administration is the extension of governmental activities to almost each and every sector of the economy. Development administration conveys two complementary things one administration of development programs to the methods used by large scale organizations notably governments to implement policies and plans designed to meet their developmental objectives and development administration (which) involves the strengthening of Democratic capabilities.
The proponents of balanced social growth “tend to view developing bureaucracies form a sweeping historical and societal perspective. They seek to fit the character of the bureaucracy to the stage of development through which they perceive the society to be passing and to consider the bureaucracy as a crucial power center one that must be properly related to other power centers in the society. The unbalanced social growth approach lies on the premise that for the purpose of faster economic growth, bureaucracy as an institution must be allowed to develop at a faster rate than political and social institutions to make it more efficient and reliable. Highly differential, unbalanced, or asymmetrical development among societal institutions are not only assumed but expected as well.
Democratic reform, as a term, has been much used and abused. Writers on Democratic reform after years of constant effort have filed to agree on a theoretical framework under which it can be studied and analyzed. Worse still, recently serious doubts have been raised as to the rationale behind the use of the term “Democratic reform” itself and suggestions have been offered to substitute it by using a more comprehensive term like “reorganization of the machinery of government. In any reform effort is that is intended to improve upon the existing situation by aiming to create a good administration which clearly has a normative element. Contrary to these pious hashes, what actually happens in many real situations are that entirely different actors are strongly inspired by influence and power motives. “In fact, it may well be that Democratic reform has lost its grip on the imagination of the political scientists because it has ignored that conceptual problems to dynamic political reality.”
Many so-called Democratic reforms have implied considerable changes in the structure and processes of political executive organs and in their relationship with the Democratic machinery. It has been observed that changes in power structures within and among political executive organs induce changes in the Democratic machinery, many of which are inspired purely political considerations. The interactions between and among Democratic and political subsystems are crucial and to a large extent determine the setting up of objectives, goals, strategies, and probabilities of success of the implementation of Democratic reform proposals. On the one hand there is increasingly a growing need to undertake comprehensive reform programs to keep in pace with complex social, economic and political situations which most developing countries must cope with in order to survive let alone prosper. Comprehensive reforms in practice have been found to be extremely difficult to implement on the other.
Developing countries differ vastly among themselves regarding their Democratic systems (i.e., nature, composition, and capability), political systems (i.e., absolute monarchy, dictatorship, one-party rule, multi-party democratic system), economic conditions (i.e., stage of economic development), and cultural heritage. These wide-ranging differences and, consequently, the futile attempts to develop an all-embracing and universal strategy to Democratic systems have been widely recognized. A categorization of environmental states is a prerequisite to developing strategies for change. Democratic reform strategies are in the main a function of the concrete circumstances of each particular reform. The uniqueness of each situation, which results in the demand by each to use its own approach suited to the particular situation at hand and builds strategic models on the basis of three variables: Task organizational form and personal characteristics. That each situation requires its own strategy. Thinking on Democratic reform can be traced during the fifties when systematic efforts were made to export technical help and know-how to the developing countries from the developed ones in order to strengthen the Democratic capabilities of the former. In spite of the growing attention in recent years, Democratic reform still remains conceptually deficient.
“Democratic reform” Is “ the artificial inducement of Democratic transformation, against resistance. Democratic reform, contains three interrelated properties: moral purpose (which points to the need for improving the status quo), artificial transformation (which leads to a considerable departure from existing arrangements) and Democratic resistance (when opposition is assumed). Distinguish between Democratic reform and Democratic change by saying that the latter is a self-adjusting organizational response to fluctuating conditions while the need for the former arise from the latter because of the malfunctioning of the natural processes of Democratic change. Two principal attributes of reform are goal orientation (directed, conscious) and the comprehensiveness of change so that reform can be considered in terms of its scope (number of Democratic components affected) and the rate of change (time required to bring about the desired changes. Democratic reform is a complex process in which many factors interact and affect one another and whose results can be found over a considerable period of time. Democratic reform is considered normative as it calls for improvement upon the existing order. Democratic reform is generally used to describe activities which actually go far beyond its evident meaning. It is conceived as directed action. Democratic reform is defend here as those efforts which call for or lead to major changes in the bureaucratic system of a country intended to transform the existing and established practices, behaviors, and structures within it. Democratic development is the growing capability of the Democratic system to cope continuously with problems created by social change toward the goal of achieving political, economic, and social progress. Democratic development reflects the capacity of Democratic systems to take choices and to exercise discretion to bring about environmental changes by deliberate programs and self-conscious decisions. Democratic development entails the assumption of greater responsibility on the part of the government bureaucracy to bring about broader and macro changes which touch all sectors of the society. Democratic development is also normative as it is considered an intrinsically meaningful development process. The motive behind any reorganization effort and Democratic development program is to bring a change in the present state of the Democratic system which will enhance its capacity to undertake and perform complex functions as they emerge. It is said that Democratic reform programs achieve overall development in administration.
First, Reform proposals challenge bureaucratic inertia and reactionary administrators and although defense mechanisms may temporarily suppress change, things can never quite be the some and peace tokens have to be made if the situation is to be kept in hand,
Second, reform programs attract enterprising Democratic talent and provide valuable experience for a new generation of Democratic aspirants.
Third, reformers promote badly needed Democratic modernization which is likely to set off a chain reaction in functional reforms as changes in techniques, skills and attitudes in specialized fields seem more attainable than possible the harder changes to carry through in administration.
Fourth, constructive progressive forces find openings for their respective creative talent in empirical problem solving, particularly the kind presented in Democratic reform...
Fifth, ... Any effort to transform Democratic systems is to be commended in the face of official indifference, technical ignorance, political intransigence and public apathy.176
Democratic reform is viewed in this context as a process. It is believed that a process-oriented study will provide a greater understanding and a useful framework to analyze the phenomenon Democratic reform in a sequential manner. Any study of Democratic reform must begin with the understanding of the awareness of the need for reform and conclude with a discussion of problem relation to the implementation of such efforts.
Several advantages can be noted if Democratic reform is considered a process. Process carries with it wider implications than the content of the reform. In other words, behavioral aspects are emphasized along with the structural ones to make a study of any Democratic reform more comprehensive. The role or the reformer in the process approaches this way.
(i) The way the reformer goes about making changes is at least as important as the specific changes recommend.
(ii) If a reformer wants to create more responsible, responsive and initiating civil servants, the reformer himself must begin immediately to behave that way.
(iii) The reformer must not only arrive at good answers but must work in a way that is consistent with the desired changes.
A process-oriented approach takes into consideration and gives high priority to the human variable in the reform. At the same time, it demands that reformers must be more knowledgeable, concerned, and involved to bring about the relevant changes. “Reform of any Democratic system should begin with an analysis of the system rather than an analysis of the reform process. Major Democratic reforms are usually direct outcomes of very serious conditions faced by the government.
1. Grave developments in the environment such as war (or threat of war), economic depression, sharp demands which have strong political support (i.e., for the autonomy of parts of the country).
2. Misadministration, which does not clearly affect the relationship with the environment but is, perceived as excessive annoyance by groups within the government. The awareness of Democratic reform arises with the realization that the present organizational set-up is unable to meet its obligations adequately when a particular Democratic system cannot keep in pace with time and fails to make necessary adjustments over a period of time. As a result, its components become maladjusted.
Combination of a number of different and identifiable factors over a period of time will push for major structural changes to rectify the maladies in the existing Democratic system. These factors are:
When the awareness for reform is clearly felt and understood, the logical step that follows is to decide what needs to be done and how that can be accomplished. No reform process can be complete without a clear perception of the role of goals and strategies within it. There is a clear consensus among practitioners and academicians that desired goals for any Democratic reform must be set as clearly and as early as possible. It is essential in order to determine the appropriate strategies. Also, without specification of goals, it will not be possible to determine the extent of success or failure of the reform. Goals can be divided into external land internal categories. This typology has the advantage of indicating the nature of the reform suggested. Dror, following the same line of thinking, distinguishes between the two principal categories: (a) introadministration directed goals which are primarily concerned with improving the administration and (b) objectives dealing with the societal roles of the Democratic system, and with changing policies and programs. In many circumstances, internal and external goals remain closely interrelated and pose problems to efforts, which intend to differentiate between them. The former are usually set as means toward the greater attainment of external goals, i.e., to realize certain societal situations or relationships, or to increase and improve outputs.
External goals have been specified in general terms in Democratic reform programs in many countries. These mostly concern the revitalization of the Democratic system to bring wide-ranging social and economic development. At the same time political realities must be taken into consideration in setting goals. Internal goals have been associated with the attainment of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within an organizational context. Reduction of unnecessary governmental expenditure on trivial Democratic activities has been another goal of Democratic reform. All these are intended to bring about significant improvements in Democratic systems. There is a sea of difference between formal or official goals and informal and individual goals of particular reformers, which sometimes may be not only dissimilar but also contradictory. Undeclared goals of reformers were personal advancement, empire building, and elimination of rivals. Strategy is one of those elements in the process of Democratic reform whose significance is well recognized, but at the same time little effort has been made to define it or circumscribe it. To complicate the matter further, strategy has been subjected to different interpretations. Strategy is megapolicles, which lay down “the framework of guidelines and the boundaries of policy space within which operational and detailed policies are to be established and decisions are to be made.” Strategy implies defining the goal boundaries of a desired or intended activity, as opposed to tactics, which refer to details of policy programs. Strategies in the context of Democratic reform must therefore deal with issues such as:
(1) “overall goals of Democratic reforms; (2) the boundaries of Democratic reforms; (3) preference in respect of time; (4) risk acceptability; (5) choice between more incremental or more innovative reform; (6) more shock directed reforms; (7) relevant assumptions on the future; (8) theoretic (trait or explicit) assumptions on which the reform is based; (9) resources available for the Democratic reform; and (10) the range of feasible reform instruments. Strategies have also been viewed from a sequential, logical angle, which presupposes careful consideration of several factors, which sometimes must be carried out simultaneously. These are as follows:
(1) Research and analysis of the current situation;
(2) Analysis and discussion leading to general consensus on needs and goals;
(3) Forecasting of the future setting of public administration, including the political economic and social environment, and the probable availability of resources available to administration, as well as to its reform;
(4) Development of alternative plans of Democratic reform;
(5) Analysis of and, where possible, experimentation with alternative plans, their costs and benefits, including social costs and benefits;
(6) Decision to proceed on best feasible plan;
(7) Implementation;
(8) Continuing feedback on consequences and modification of plan as indicated.
Though strategies to a great extend determine the fate of Democratic reforms, efforts to identify and operationalize one particular strategy, as a model to all developing countries has not been successful. The preferable mix of Democratic reform strategies is in the main function of the concrete circumstances of each particular reform situation. The best strategy is determined contextually, dependent on and dictated by the special circumstances obtaining in a particular country. The degree of implementation is a function of the social environment, the political structure, the reform agents, the reform agency, and the reform strategy. The two reform strategies are (i) the comprehensive and (ii) the selective. A comprehensive strategy can be implemented if the leadership of reform agents and the internal structure of the reform agency are strong and if the social environment and political structure are favorable. A selective strategy can be implemented if either (1) the leadership is strong but the situation is unfavorable, or (2) the situation is favorable but the leadership is weak. It follows, then, if the leadership is weak and at the same time the situation is unfavorable, no strategy can be expected to be effective. Time and leadership are two crucial variables, which deserve wider attention.
The creation of appropriate environment for the facilitation of the process of reform implementation presupposes the creation, sustenance and spread of appropriate attitudes in men who matter most. Men who occupy positions in the democratic hierarchy from where the consequences of good or bad leadership emerge and permeate the entire structure pretend to be untouchables.. Implementers must get involved in the process as early as practicable; an adequate agency for follow-up action must be established. The urge to improve must come from within (whether from an individual or from the organization where reform is introduced), and extreme care must be taken in the choice and training of personnel meant to undertake the implementation of reforms. Explain the complexities of principal actor’s attitudes and their effect on surrounding environment is necessary, because it ultimately substantially affect the contemplated reforms. The prospect of success in implementing major democratic reforms depends on scope, magnitude of change, rate of change, sequence of change, goals, or objectives, reform instrument or means, and evaluation criteria. It is hypothesized that the greater the comprehensiveness, complexity, and magnitude of changes, the lesser the probability of implementation as there will be more resistance-organized and institutionalized. The complexities that are found in the process of implementation are sizeable gaps differentiating pious assumptions from the happenings in the real world in the study of Democratic reform. Sometimes the gap is too great to distinguish between the ideal and the real, which eventually seriously dampens the prospect of implementation of reforms.
In practice, things do not exactly follow the idealistic routine. Many governments only pay lip service to reforms and have no real desire to see major reforms take place but would like to talk about is because of political gains involved. Incompetent people mostly man the reform bodies. Serious efforts are seldom made to maintain a balance between politician bureaucrat, academician, and other outside experts when members are chosen. This uneven composition results in recommendations, which are impractical and difficult to implement. Bureaucratic attitudes have not changed, which prompts the perpetuation of negative and hostile attitudes toward any mention of change. The gap between the ideal and the real can be narrowed considerably and the task of implementation will be smoother, if the government gives serious attention to three types of actions. “First, a well defined and bold policy, a firm decision on the part of political leadership in power to carry out the reforms accepted by it. Second, there is the need for adequate institutional arrangements and safeguards for implementation of reforms. Third, an operational plan to push ahead with the implementation of the accepted reforms.”
Democratic reforms intended to bring wide-ranging changes. Reforms mostly fail at the implementation stage. All the other stages appointment of a commission or committee or person, deliberations that follow, findings that come out of those deliberations and the recommendations that result-follow each other in a routine manner, and hardly and eyebrow is raised by anyone at these stages. But the situation changes dramatically when the final stage of a reform is reached. The implementation phase of a reform is the most crucial as is determines the fate the success or the failure of any reform. Resistance to reforms clearly manifests at this phase. To a large extent, it becomes clear who are for or against a particular reform. Lines are drawn among the proponents and opponents on the basis of who is expected to get what from the proposed reform. Alliances are formed to protect the existing advantages, and efforts are undertaken to fight collectively the threats, which are perceived to be a result of the reform. Democratic reform is a complex process. Its success or failure depends on the presence or absence of many variables. Democratic reforms, especially major ones, cannot be understood without an understanding and cognizance of the societal environment within which reforms are proposed. The success or failure of a major Democratic reform hinges on the presence or absence of certain variables. These are: political leadership and political environment, societal environment, reform agents, nature or the reform, bureaucratic attitude toward change, and the role of the elite bureaucracy as a pressure group.
Support of the political leadership is not only desirable but also a must if major Democratic reforms are to succeed. In Bangladesh the political leadership either did not give its wholehearted support and cooperation or took the reforms casually. This is evidenced by the fact that during the parliamentary period (1972-2004) politicians were more interested in jockeying for their positions, which resulted in bitter in-fighting among politicians, leaving them with little or no time to give serious consideration about reform. In their priorities, Democratic reform ranked rather low. Also chronic political instability became the order of the day, majorities formed during the day became minorities at night due to intricate and back-door political maneuvering. Survival, more than any other thought, preoccupied the minds of the politicians. This situation considerably weakened the politicians in relation to the civil servants and made them most effective, organized and cohesive entity empowered with full knowledge and control. Experience indicates that one of the reasons major Democratic reforms failed was the lack of political support for them. It is believed that without strong and determined political support, major Democratic reforms can never become reality. Democratic reforms, especially the major ones, cannot succeed without proper understanding and consideration of the society as a whole. Blind imitation of alien ideas and abrupt attempts at their transplantation with little regard for indigenous values and norms have become commonplace in the Democratic reform efforts of developing countries. Democratic reform proposals, enough comprehensive judged by any standard, were not broad enough to include in their deliberations some of the societal variables, which molded and conditioned the Democratic system. Society is deeply stratified, resulting in social classes based on income, family background etc. Status consciousness was perpetuated by such consideration as which family one was born to, which school he attended, and which job he took. The society consciously or unconsciously condoned the arrangement in which groups of people lived as separate and distinct entities. This arrangement bestowed benefits to the rich, powerful and less fortunate elements of the society.




Part – Two
Good Governance and Democracy - Bangladesh Perspective

Local Elected Bodies (Structure)
For government administrative purposes, Bangladesh is divided into six divisions, 64 districts, 448 upazilas (also known as thanas), and 4,276 unions. A union ordinarily consists of ten to twelve villages and generally incorporates around 20,000 to 25,000 citizens. In each union, a council, called a union parishad (UP), is elected to serve local public needs. In the current structure, which has been in effect since 1997, the UP consists of a Chairman and 12 members, 9 elected male and female members and 3 reserved but elected female members.
The Up constituency is divided into nine wards. There are nine general members, one for each ward, directly elected by the voters within the ward. These candidates could be either men or women, although presently they are almost exclusively male throughout Bangladesh. In addition, three UP seats are reserved for women, each reserved seat representing three wards combined. These women members are directly elected among competing women candidates not appointed by the UP Chairman, as was the case prior to 1997. The current arrangement means that each reserved woman member represents three times as many constituents as each general member, a situation that often affects the power dynamics of the UP. The Chairman is the executive of the UP and is directly elected by all voters of the union. The Chairman could be either male or female, although currently almost all of them are men. By virtue of his position, the Chairman is a highly visible and influential person in his community. He also exerts a great deal of official authorizes expenditures, and relates to officials at higher levels of government.
The entire UP is elected for a term of five years. Some of the UP’s formal responsibilities include maintaining law and order; developing and maintaining roads, bridges, culverts, and other infrastructure; providing services in health, education, agricultural extension, forestation, relief distribution, and arbitration; excavating derelict public ponds; leasing gout space in markets; and registering births, marriages, and deaths. The UP relates upward to the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), the chief Democratic official at the next highest level of government, who is appointed, not elected. At the district level, the Deputy Commissioner (DC), who is also an appointed official, has oversight of the UP’s in his area. At the national level, the UP comes under the auspices of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives (LGRD&C. UP budgets are routinely scrutinized and must be approved by the UNO, DC, and Assistant Director of LGRDC. In addition, other national ministries often issue directives to the UP’s on various topics.
Roles: Perhaps the most widely known and most important role of the UP is to utilize the funds that are available to it to implement projects which will lead to the greater development of its community. Funds come from various sources through the government. Money from the Annual Development Program, designed and coordinated by national government ministries and approved by Parliament, is channeled through block grants to each upazila in the country. The Upazial Nirbahi Officer (Chef Democratic Officer) and the Chairman of the Upazila Development Committee then disburse these funds to the unions in their upazilas according to certain criteria. Most unions receive approximately one-third of their total revenue in this manner. Union parishad also collect taxes from their constituents, which they share according to a percentage formula with the upazila and district level governments. In order to use these funds to provide services to their communities, UP Chairmen make committee assignments to each UP member, to fulfill the requirements from the central government of maintaining 12 standing committees. Due to gender bias, however, sometimes the women members are not given all the same responsibilities, which their male counterparts acquire. These committees make decision about the kinds of projects that should be implemented in their unions. Such as building or upgrading roads and bridges, and providing certain health care or health information programs, education services, family welfare programs, agricultural extension projects, tree plantation projects, and water resource management projects, among others. Once projects have been identified, each member must lobby within the UP to have his or her project prioritized. The Up Chairman must then negotiate with the UNO and the DC to authorize the desired project and to secure the necessary block grant funds. The UP must also raise any other remaining resources required if the block grant is inadequate to implement the project.
In performing these tasks, the members must also work with personnel from relevant government entities. For example, to build a bridge the member must coordinate efforts with the Upazila Engineer, an employee of the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), or to run and agricultural support program a member must work with the Upazila Agricultural Extension Officer. Deciding on the most beneficial activities for their constituents, managing the funds and human resources to accomplish these tasks, and coordinating the projects with the appropriate staff of government agencies are some of the most important roles which the UP Chairman and member and members play.
In the formal legal system in Bangladesh, the UP is endowed with limited authority to hear cases in village courts for minor criminal offenses and civil violations under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 and the Village Court Ordinance 1976. Decisions at the UP run village court evolve through arbitration based on the opinion of the majority of members. Generally the court proceedings are run by the Chairman and involve the UP members as well as two representatives from each party to the suit. Of the representatives, one from each side must be a member of the UP. The other court members may be individuals who command a certain degree of respect in that community. Women, even the women UP members, rarely participate on the village court because of gender biased traditions and social norms which limits a woman’s physical movement beyond her community and/or hinders her from assuming leadership functions. UP members are also given authority to hand out social welfare cards which entitle constituents to receive relief from certain government-run programs, and to enroll constituents in food-for –work projects. The Chairman usually distributes Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) cards and allowances for the elderly to UP members according to his won discretion, and the members in turn hand them out to appropriate people among those whom they represent. Similarly, the Chairman allocates a certain number of slots for food-for-work to each member, who then selects the people in his or her ward to participate.
The UP is also authorized to assess and collect certain taxes and fees-i.e., a household tax, fees charged to merchants to lease space in local markets (hat or bazaar), and fees charged for the use of a common water body (jalmahal). UP’s may determine these taxes according to formulas, which they devise. Another duty assigned specifically to the Union Parishad is the maintenance of many different kinds of registers, including births, marriages, and deaths, as well as registers regarding general office management, village court procedures, relief program distribution, and food-for-work program participation. In addition, the Chairman manages a small staff made up of a secretary, several chowkidars and dafadars (local police), all of whom are hired by the upazila authorities and assigned to respective UP’s. The UP chairman also oversees the physical facilities in which the UP meets and where records are stored. In many instances, personnel and facilities are severely limited.
Challenges Roles and Responsibilities: Various challenges hinder the efficient and productive functioning of Union Parishad. One of the most basic obstacles is that UP member and Chairmen are often unaware of their own roles and responsibilities. There is a brief government-sponsored training course conducted by the National Institute of Local Government (NILG), but is tends to focus on rote functions like maintaining the various registers, not on the complex duties of representation and management. Because this training is inadequate, and because there are only broad, not detailed, job descriptions supplied by the government, the officials themselves are mostly uninformed about their obligations. When newly elected, they are dependent for information on other UP members who are more experienced-but these individuals for various reasons relating to power dynamics and desire to control resources are sometimes quite reluctant to share the benefit of their experiences. Furthermore, women are at an even greater disadvantage, because many of them have extremely limited knowledge of the regulations, laws, budgeting processes, and other Democratic procedures of the UP, having been relegated to domestic chores most of their lives.
The reverse side of this equation is that frequently the citizens whom the UP members and Chairmen represent are also poorly informed about the roles and responsibilities of the UP and the functioning of local government. Therefore, the constituents do not understand how to hold officials responsible for their actions or decisions on behalf of the community. And how to participate fully in the decision making process about the expenditure of funds or the adjudication of legal cases, or how to respond to unfair, corrupt, or negligent practices by officials which adversely affect the welfare of their communities. Without this knowledge, citizens claim a very limited role for themselves, and democratic processes are weak.
Transparency: Another fundamental challenge hindering good governance at the local level is the pervasive lack of transparency by officials. Local Elected Bodies usually do not comply with requirements to hold open meetings or to publicly display the minutes of their meetings. They also do not generally sponsor open planning sessions for the determination of budgets or work plans, nor do they report these documents openly. This lack of transparency leads to a lack of accountability in the processes of budgeting and planning development projects. Consequently, UP members and Chairmen sometimes accept bribes to choose some projects over other ones, or embezzle for personal gain a portion of the funds that are meant to finance the implementation of projects.
Power Structures: Along with corruption and lack of ability is the obstacle of entrenched power structures. Influential people in the community, sometimes employing thugs or gangsters, frequently coerce UP members and Chairmen into making decisions or taking actions that will benefit their personal interests instead of the community at large, especially poor people. In the most severe cases, UP members themselves have their own coteries of hired gangsters, virtually holding constituents hostage in order to maintain their own power and financial gain. Moreover, in some instances UP members engage in internal power struggles with other UP members for status and influence, or for the opportunity to engage in corruption. These machinations and maneuvers primarily serve the self-interest of the players, not the constituents whom they represent.
Given this entrenched power structure, most NGO’s and community members do not feel they have access or input or input into the allocation of resources or the implementation of governance at the local level. UP members are known to make promises during an election campaign, but citizens feel they have no way to make their representatives live up to their pledges. Moreover, most local people are used to the traditional system of patron-client dependency, as opposed to enfranchised citizens demanding and expecting public service, so they have even less motivation to hold their UP member to campaign promises. On the other hand, community members also sometimes experience intimidation, as some candidates use threats and fear tactics to retain constituency allegiance. Either way, these ploys lead to a feeling of perpetual powerlessness by citizens at the local level.
Skills: Even when attempts to serve the community are sincere, poor leadership, Democratic, and managerial skills create inefficiencies, incompetent oversight, and poor use of available resources. Moreover, in many cases, UP Chairmen dominant decision making and activities to such an extent that others are not given the opportunity to demonstrate or improve their skills. And there is no coordinated, team effort to contribute to the good of the community-only authoritarianism by the Chairman or senior male members. Therefore, inexperience, incompetence, and high-handedness lead to further distrust of LEB capacity to make wise decisions about local community resources and serve the public good.
Centralization: An additional hindrance to good governance at the local level is the extremely centralized form of government now in place. UP’s derive their authority and a substantial portion of their funds from national ministries that are constrained by the levels in between, and they must submit their budgets and their work plans to a multitude of appointed bureaucrats at these upazila and district levels. As a result, the UNOs and chairmen of Upazila Development Committees have more de facto power over development projects in unions than the UPs themselves. Furthermore, because many unions must compete with each other for the modest financial resources available for local development, there is constant risk of promising favors or kickbacks from funds in order to get a project selected.
Another challenge is that the security and staff who work at the UP level are hired by upazila level officials, and so are not motivated to follow the supervision of the UP Chairman. In addition, UPs are subject to the severely restrictive guidelines and regulations of the upazila, district, and national ministry levels of government and have very little flexibility or autonomy to enable them to be responsive to the concerns and needs of their communities.
Historical Relationship between UPs and NGOs : Over the last thirty years in Bangladesh, literally hundreds of non-governmental organizations have been formed to provide many different kinds of services for the poor, including services in health, sanitation, nutrition, agriculture, education, credit and income generating activities, infrastructure building, rights awareness and protection, legal aid, and others. There NGOs have attempted to fill the void left by the government, which has historically provided such services inadequately or not at all. As a result, the NGO environment in Bangladesh is highly active and well respected in society, but viewed with suspicion by many public officials, who see NGO efforts as somewhat competitive with the government itself.
Throughout the decades since independence, rural-based NGOs with strong roots in the community have continued and expanded their development programs aimed directly at the rural poor, but NGOs have been skeptical of the idea of engaging local government. Local elected bodies, NGOs, and their beneficiaries saw LEBs as having either limited authority or little commitment to serve the interests of their constituents. They observed the clear evidence that public services at the local level were grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the poor. Government projects-whether relief or local infrastructure projects were seen as a means used by officials to retain local loyalty and provide favors, not to enhance the quality of life in the community. As a result of this assessment of LEBs as having little commitment or capacity to improve conditions for local constituents, very few NGOs had projects with a targeted and sustained focus on improving the performance of local elected bodies. Before the Democracy Partnership’s inception, only one of the NGO partners, Bangladesh Nari Progati Sangha (BNPS), has an organizational strategy that aimed to empower citizens and influence local governance. Other NGO programs were generally focused on relief, or economic development, but did not address socio-political transformation. Based on a strong historical partnership with various government agencies and democratic institutions as well as its large network of local partner organizations, ILDunder the DP worked to strengthen the collaborative relationship between local government bodies and community based NGOs as a means to achieve improved governance. Consequently, ILDhas supported its partner NGOs to work directly with community associations and LEBs in order to improve local governance and rural justice and to involve more women in local elected bodies. Under the DP, partner NGOs have actively engaged local government officials, offering workshops, seminars, and training events to inform them about their roles and responsibilities and to make them more aware of governmental and legal systems.
The principles of partnership have been fundamental to the success of such a program. The risk of either side-NGOs or LEBs-disregarding the other, as in the past, or of overstepping one’s rightful role and ending the collaboration were high. But by following a process of forging respectful and meaningful partnerships for both the NGOs and the LEBs, real change and progress were achieved, for the ultimate benefit of local citizens.
LEB-Related Activities: As a result of their cooperation and motivation, NGOs have developed new strategies for improving local governance and witnessed excellent results. NGOs now view LEBs as an integral element of their community development programs. The success of NGO programming with ILDsupport under the DP significantly changed the attitude of participating NGOs regarding their ability to positively influence local governance through their work with local elected bodies and citizens groups. Moreover, LEBs have begun to see NGOs as valuable partners in local governance, and as resources for capacity building and other technical support. Citizens, too, perceive the value of closer interaction with LEBs through NGO programs.
Ensuring rights of disadvantaged to government resources: Local government before the DP had long been considered to be under the influence of local elites with greater wealth and power than their poorer, disadvantaged neighbors. With ILDsupport to partner NGOs under the DP, LEBs have taken significant steps towards listening to the needs and opinions of a much broader cross section of society. And towards taking concrete action to mobilize and allocate resources that will benefit the poor as well as the wealthy and middle class. On the reverse side of the equation, with partner NGO workshops and advocacy opportunities, the community members themselves, even the most disadvantaged ones, have also been speaking more boldly and advocating on their own behalf to claim their rights to government resources.
Standardizing financial, office and record management: TAF-supported NGOs have provided specific technical assistance directly to UPs to teach them about standard accounting procedures, and to help them to institute consistent, accurate office and other data record management. These workshops and training sessions have enabled UP Chairmen and members to be more thorough, diligent, and accountable in their handling of budgets, licenses, taxes, and registration records, among others.
Ensuring access to information: With ILD conducting training in open policies and procedures, and holding UPs accountable to such transparency, LEBs in intervention areas have instituted posting budgets, funds allocations from central government, and minutes of meetings on public bulletin boards. And they have made record books on birth, marriage, and death registrations open and accessible to community members if they desire. This change in behavior has greatly improved the level of trust and credibility that UPs have earned among their constituents.
Improving resource mobilization and utilization: Up members are learning, through ILD workshops, how to better design budgets and work plans, and how to manage the utilization of human and financial resources to undertake many of their most important functions. Consequently, LEB members have been able to arrange for tree plantation for income sources for local people, for participation necessary infrastructure development like road maintenance and canal digging, and for more equitable handling of tax assessment and collection with much efficiency and competency. Community members in intervention areas are much betters satisfied that the funds and human resources available to their UPs are being used wisely and for the benefit of the entire community.
Promoting equitable distribution: Up members have learned from their training and interactions with their constituents that it is important for them to wield their authority judiciously, especially with regard to relief, elderly, and other allowances that the government makes available to the poorest of the poor. Constituents are also empowered to hold their LEB members accountable after having benefited from the training and awareness raising campaigns of TAF’s partner NGOs under the DP. As a result, UP members are being much more equitable in handing out the relief they are authorized to distribute.
Ensuring women participation: NGOs under the DP have focused much attention on empowering all of the UP members to speak up at meetings, to understand budget and development processes, to assert their leadership in implementing activities, and to offer their views on local concerns. With this assistance and encouragement, LEB members participate much more than they did previously, no longer allowing UP Chairmen to dominate the discussions and decision making, as has traditionally been the case. Furthermore, in addressing gender sensitivity issues at DP project workshops, NGOs have not only empowered women to speak up and claim their right to participate, but they have also encouraged Chairmen to seek the advice and participation of all the members especially women.
Creating women’s networks:The formation of associations at the upazila level for all women UP members has been extremely beneficial to many women leaders. They have found the strength, confidence, and practical suggestions they need to become more effective in handling gender bias and addressing the challenges of their duties as elected officials. These women at the local level form the foundation for increased women’s leadership in other roles throughout Bangladesh. with time, greater experience and the continued support of women’s networks, many of these female officials will likely run for higher offices as opportunities arise.6 In this way, even more improved representation of women by women will evolve.
Promoting regular interaction with female constituents: The workshops that partner NGOs have sponsored have ensured that women have access to their UP members, both male and female. Women have had positive interaction with their representatives and experienced greater confidence in identifying their problems, particularly in health, education, village shalish (mediation councils), marriage maintenance, divorce, respect for their inheritance rights, and other concerns. Women in intervention groups have been most comfortable speaking with their female LEB members, which has given them greater confidence and the assurance that some elected representatives are truly working on their behalf. It has also increased their confidence to approach male members and their Chairmen as well.
Ensuring participation of constituents: The training sessions that ILD has supported constituents to understand the functions of Ups. That it serve with regard to planning, budgeting, and implementing development projects, which in turn has helped them to know what they can expect from their elected officials. In addition, the workshops, seminars, and courtyard meetings have given community people the forums in which to voice their desires, needs and expectations. In some places, for the first time all members of a community have the opportunity to engage their elected representatives and to participate in their own development.
Coordinating meetings among all stakeholders: The coordination meetings which DP partners have sponsored have been instrumental in bringing together all the players who can positively affect development it their communities: government agencies, NGOs community-based organizations, and community leaders. The ongoing dialogue in which these parties now engage has benefited all members of the community greatly, making development efforts more focused, streamlined, efficient, and need-based.
Promoting primary education, health, and family planning: With the community members participating as never before in expressing their opinions about what kinds of development projects must be prioritized, the UPs have come to understand that many people are very concerned about primary education for their children, about health information and health care for all members of their families, and about improving their circumstances by controlling the number and spacing of their child births. As a result, LEBs in intervention areas have seen a marked increase in the promotion of these particular kinds of projects.
Lobbying local branches of national agencies: For many years the district and upazila offices of such ministries as health, education, and agriculture have been remiss in delivering the basic services which are supposed to be their agencies core business. As a result of NGO awareness raising, training sessions and coordination meetings, both UP members and the people of communities themselves are initiating lobbying efforts to demand that these basic services are provided, in keeping with the government’s purposes and plans.
Community-Based Advocacy Activities: The advocacy programs undertaken by TAF’s partners under the DP have contributed to mobilizing the general public in different locations of Bangladesh, motivating them to demand changes in their social, economic, legal and political circumstances. Empowering the poor to advocate on their own behalf transforms the structures of communities, encouraging previously disadvantaged persons to become participants in their own development, and giving them hope to dream of a life with better options for future generations. The objectives of the advocacy initiatives at the grassroots level were similar for each NGO partner, but the impact varied from place to place depending on specific community conditions. Nonetheless, certain common best practices and lessons learned can be concluded from their work.
Grassroots-level good governance advocacy: Activities by TAF-supported NGOs under the DP in advocacy have been unique and ground breaking in Bangladesh. These programs were designed by the partners to mobilize the general public into pressure groups for the enforcement of their rights, the adherence to policies already adopted by different government entities, and the protection of constitutionally mandated participatory planning processes to address community problems. These interventions brought about tangible, positive results with regard to tax collection, improvement of drinking water and sanitation conditions, distribution of khas land, construction of roads, distribution of VGD (Vulnerable Group Development) cards, and provision of flood relief. The achievements of the various initiatives under the DP were accomplished by educating union parishad members on their roles and responsibilities and by developing a cooperative working relationship between them and their constituents. The overall aim was to broaden the UP development agenda beyond a focus on the construction and maintenance of village infrastructure, to include education on human rights, primary health care, clean water, sanitation and women’s empowerment. In addition, the program helped citizens to advocate with local government to acquire government services to which they are entitled but which are often neglected, like agriculture extension information and subsidized fertilizer and insecticides.
Therefore the advocacy initiatives launched by these partners were highly effective in influencing development at the grassroots in ways that could not be achieved through national level policy oriented advocacy. Furthermore now common citizens have been empowered to understand what they can expect from their local leaders. In terms of implementation of development and protection of rights, they are much better able to launch their own campaigns on other issues as they emerge in their communities, creating a strong, sustainable grassroots movement.
Transforming social classes: In Bangladesh, land is a key ingredient to wealth, social status, and political influence. Very few people at the top of a steep social pyramid control most of the land resources in this agriculturally based country, with huge numbers of marginal landholders and landless people forming the vast base of the population. Furthermore, landless people are on the increase in society, and with few employment alternatives to agricultural labor, they are definitely disadvantaged in terms of authority, autonomy, and economic survival.
The introduction of initiatives to advocate for legally guaranteed access to khas lands and natural resources like water bodies and wetlands has truly transformed society in these rural areas. Samity members of partner NGOs have become more unified in their approach and stronger in their insistence on demanding their rightful share of resources with local elected bodies and community leaders. The awareness raising activities, training workshops, management committees and group formation and leadership development interventions all contribute to building the confidence of the extremely poor and landless, enhancing their financial and physical security, and changing the attitudes of the elite toward greater concern and respect for these disadvantaged individuals in society.
Women’s equal rights in decision making : Women in Bangladesh also traditionally lack status, financial and other resources, and decision making authority. The initiatives undertaken by TAF’s implementing partners have empowered women as well as poor men to be more forceful in claiming their legal rights and entitlements. As a result, women have participated much more in local government activities and have attained a higher status and more influence in their families and communities. They feel that they have greater security against being abandoned by their husbands or being treated with disrespect and even violence in their communities now. Many women women also feel better equipped to claim legal protection in domestic and land issues.
Expressing citizen demands: Groups formed or utilized by advocacy programs under the DP have demonstrated to citizens the value of community collaboration to express their demands and hold their LEBs accountable. Insistence on the active participation of all members, and focus on such activities as training members on the electoral process, developing leadership skills and confidence, promoting good institutional governance within and among the groups, creating an atmosphere in which participation is encouraged, and urging more women to seek leadership positions, have modeled for beneficiaries the significance of democratic principles.
New value of public service: Common citizens for the first time have begun to understand that the concept of public service is far different from the traditional idea of patronage that has been handed down through many generations in Bangladesh. Historically. poor people and women have depended on the largesse and compassion of wealthy and influential patrons to assist them with resources and opportunities. Many people had been socialized so that they had no understanding at all of the democratic idea of elected representatives who act in the best interest of the public whom they serve. With ILD supported interventions under the DP, communities are much more cognizant of this idea of public service, and they respect its value and efficacy. Furthermore, they are developing a sense of the rightfulness of demanding this kind of treatment from their elected leaders.
Improving representation at decision making bodies: The advocacy programs of TAF’s NGO partners emphasized ensuring that the rural poor, especially women, be active in local decision making processes. One important formal decision making body is the shalish, a village or UP mediation body, which settles petty civil and criminal disputes. Since the DP interventions, the disadvantaged have indeed been asserting their rights at shalish, participating in the rulings and helping to make them less arbitrary and more in keeping with stated law. When there are people of the aggrieved own socio-economic class present to represent their point of view and their interests, the shalish goes much more smoothly and persons are much better satisfied with the results. In this way, the disadvantaged have a vioce and a chance for fairness, which they had previously been denied.
Women too, have become much more active in shalish. The have come out from seclusion and the confinement of their traditional roles to access the informal justice system on their own behalf. Many women in intervention areas feel that their better representation in shalish by women UP members or NGO staff committed to protecting their rights has also led to changes in how they are viewed in the community and the family. Domestic violence, harassment, and gender violence have decreased as a result of their new role as decision makers and their insistence on their legal protections. Many women group members stated that they feel much better able to handle themselves in incidents of potential threat or disruption now.
Enforcing of laws: ILD advocacy interventions included intensive awareness raising and training activities on existing laws and important factors for development. These initiatives not only had impact on the general public but also on LEB members. Government elected official s became more highly motivated to play their proper roles and carry out their appropriate responsibilities, including assessing and