*Topicality/Definitions Democracy Promotion Includes Military Intervention
Increased Democratization Key to Reducing Corruption
Download 2.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Good Governance Focus Key to Effective Democratization
Increased Democratization Key to Reducing CorruptionFREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL TO ANY EFFECTIVE ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORT Robert Charlick, Political Science Professor, Cleveland State University, 1993, Corruption and Reform 7:177-187, p. 181-2 Thus far, we have discussed some of the aspects of policy pluralism without explicitly discussing democratic accountability, arguing that broadening participation and inclusiveness alone may help remedy the problem of corruption. Democratic choice processes, however, should intensify the positive return for all of these, by providing a regular, open method for sanctioning or rewarding the few who hold positions of public trust. The more competitive and open that process is, the more likely the official is to be concerned about the costs of privatizing public goods or abusing public authority for personal gain. This is essentially the weakness of anti-corruption measures which ignore the broader political accountability costs. A power-holder may choose to reduce corruption with his or her organization for a number of public or personal reasons. He may employ a principal-agent-client approach to restructuring incentives within his agency, and may follow a very logical and useful set of prescriptions to reduce abuses of authority, as Judge Plan did in the Philippines. But if he himself or the superior who appoints him is not publicly accountable the entire venture rests on moral will or temporary coincidence of self-interest with public interests. With all of its defects, there is no political accountability mechanism more likely to give those hurt by abuse of authority the ability to punish the violator than free elections. The argument, then, is that however good the ant-corruption technique, it will only be as sustainable as the political accountability mechanisms in which it is embedded.
Michael Johnston, Political Science Professor Colgate University, 1993, Corruption and Reform, 7:189-204, p. 203 None of these ideas offer a sure “cure” for corruption, or will be easy to implement. They do, however, buttress the notion that the democratization of politics and the reduction of corruption are interconnected, and that achievements in each area can bring progress in the other. Democratic societies may be vulnerable to the excessive privatization of politics, to the “marketization” of everything, and to gridlock among competing interests – all of which can entail corruption. But a more democratic politics also brings unique strengths, and offers important anti-corruption opportunities, which are no less valuable for being long-term in their logic and effects. Macro- and micro-level approaches must work together, albeit over differing time spans. There will be numerous reversals, and much corruption along the way. But now is a time of emergent opportunities to make progress both on fighting corruption and on fostering more open politics in many African nations.
Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 386-8 Good governance has several dimensions. One is the capacity of the state to function in the service of the public good. Effective functioning requires knowledge of the policies and rules that best serve the public good, and hence training of state officials to that end. It requires a professional civil service with a set of norms and structures that promote fidelity to public rules and duties, in part by rewarding those who perform well in their roles. This relates intimately to the second dimension of good governance, commitment to the public good. Where does this commitment come from? It may be generated by dedicated and charismatic leadership. Or it may derive from a cultural ethic that appreciates—and a structure of institutional incentives that rewards—disciplined service to the nation or the general community over the use of office for private benefit. Or it may, in part, be induced by the structure of political incentives (domestic and international) that leaders confront. In every modern society, however, this commitment must, at a minimum, be reinforced by institutions that punish betrayals of the public trust. A third dimension of good governance is transparency, the openness of state conduct to the scrutiny of other state actors and of the public. Transparency is closely related to accountability. Governing agents are more likely to be responsible when they must answer for their conduct to the society in general and to other specific institutions that monitor their behavior and can impose sanctions upon them. Effective oversight requires open flows of information, and hence transparency, so that monitors can discover facts and mobilize evidence. This requires a system of government in which different institutions hold one another accountable, compelling them to justify their actions. Power is thus constrained, bound not only “by legal constraints but also by the logic of public reasoning.” Transparency and accountability are bound up with a fourth dimension of good governance, the rule of law. Governance can only be good and effective when it is restrained by the law, when the law is applied equally to the mighty and the meek, and when there are professional, independent authorities to enforce the law in a neutral, predictable fashion. A fifth dimension of good governance consists of mechanisms of participation and dialogue that enable the public to provide input to the policy process, to correct mistakes in policy design and implementation, and to promote social inclusion. Policies will be more likely to be stable and sustainable when they enjoy popular understanding and support. This requires some means for distinct organized interests, and for historically marginalized groups such as women and minorities, to have input into governmental decisions and some means of protesting policies and actions that harm their interests. Finally, when good governance functions in the above five ways, it also breeds social capital in the form of networks and associations that draw people together in relations of trust, reciprocity, and voluntary cooperation for common ends. Social capital not only fosters the expansion of investment and commerce, embedded in relations of trust and predictability, it also breeds the civic spirit, participation, and respect for law that are crucial foundations of political development and good governance. In other words, it generates a political culture of responsible citizenship. In many respects, then, good governance constitutes a “virtuous cycle” in which several elements reinforce one another to advance the public good. Conceptualized in this way, good governance promotes broad-based development, and thus poverty reduction. By generating and defending broad commitment to the public welfare, it increases the likelihood that public resources will be used to generate public goods that raise the general quality of life. When government itself is transparent and disciplined in its commitment to the public good, it provides credible signals to the rest of society about what types of behaviors are expected. In providing a fair means for the resolution of disputes, the rule of law generates an enabling environment for economic growth and some means for attenuating inequality. In incorporating groups that historically have been confined to the margins of society, good governance mitigates social conflict and harnesses the full range of talent and resources in the society. In fostering the accumulation of social capital, good governance cultivates trust (in individual and in government), cooperation, compliance with the law, and confidence in the future. GOOD GOVERNANCE CRITICAL TO EFFECTIVE DEMOCRATIZATION Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 435 Since the 1990s, the scope of political assistance has widened with the inclusion of parallel or integrated efforts to improve the quality of governance, particularly in terms of state efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Funding to improve governance became so prevalent that “almost all major donors added governance programs to their portfolios in the second half of the 1990s.” Governance is not the same thing as democracy; it can be improved even in the absence of competitive, free and fair elections. But aid agencies are increasingly realizing that improving governance not only invigorates development but also is vital to sustaining and deepening democracy. The central insight, as noted repeatedly in this book, is that democracy requires not just a limited state, but also a state with the capacity and integrity to deliver the essential things people everywhere expect of government: order, justice, public health and education, social protection, physical infrastructure, and an enabling environment for economic growth. Enhancing governance—and in particular, combating the entrenched dynamics of corruption and clientelism that gut the quality of governance—is notoriously difficult, because it runs up against deep structures of power and privilege that have developed over decades, if not centuries, and that represent the real underlying logic of how a society works. Thus, governance – or better, “democracy and governance” (DG) – programs have learned that progress requires a highly contextualized analysis of these deep power relations and the economic interests underlying them. Then, Carothers and de Gramont argue, reform requires not the rigid application of some idealized “best practice” but rather a “best fit” approach that takes into consideration local factors and cultural mores and accepts that progress will be eclectic and incremental. Donors, they find, are also learning other important insights: that helping to generate informed citizen demand for better governance is as important as working on the “supply: side; that working at the local level and with informal institutions in crucial; and that “aiding governance effectively requires development agencies to rethink their own internal governance.” Directory: assets assets -> Northern territory of australia assets -> Number: caveat in the [Will/Will and Codicil/Estate of] assets -> Invitation for Bid Calact/mbta for Standard Floor and Low Floor Rural Duty Vehicles ifb no. 12-03 November 14, 2012 assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> Sigaccess annual Report assets -> Central Government is expected to ask the seventh pay commission to consider merging 50% dearness allowance assets -> List of accessible executive records assets -> Emergency telephone numbers Call toll-free from anywhere in France Download 2.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|