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.