good government

'Development depends on good governance. That is the ingredient that has been missing in too many places, for far too long' according to President Obama.

Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General, is also on record as stating that 'good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.'

And Mo Ibrahim, the Sudanese-born cellphone magnate, who sponsors the annual Ibrahim Index of African Governance in delivering the 2009 findings said that 'the main problem impeding our (African) development is governance - or rather the lack of it. All good things start from good governance; all bad things start from bad governance.'

Good governance is paramount in promoting higher living standards everywhere, not just in Africa. And it is not a difficult concept to come to terms with: all a leader of a country needs is the determination to pursue such a goal, and never waver. And if governance is not at the top of any leader's programme, then he/she is unquestionably unfit to be head of any government.

In seeking to build up good governance in his/her country the leader will need to rely on 'AID'. But not the aid given by rich countries which so many international NGO's insist is vital for development. This AID is far more important. Real AID comes in the shape of men and women with Ability, Integrity and Drive, the only AID that guarantees progress in development, to head up the various departments of government. And merit should be the continuing determinant in all further appointments including the civil service: nepotism, where family and friends are favoured, should be avoided at all cost. All government ministers should be required make a declaration of assets when appointed. At the same time ministers and civil servants should all be well paid with the proviso that anyone found to be involved in any form of financial irregularity will be dismissed immediately.

With sound government in place, the president/prime minister will be keen to ensure that the institutions of the country are secure under his/her government. This will involve, amongst other things, seeking to uphold the rule of law, maintaining the independence of the judiciary/ central bank and protecting human rights.

Within days of being elected any government will be keen to turn its attention on the welfare of the people - all of the people. This will mean looking to forge development right throughout the country - not just in areas where important ministers reside.

Among the first tasks should be to ensure that supplies of food are adequate and guaranteed. This means allocating a reasonable share of a government's budget to agriculture. Experts suggest that, on average, three times more food could be produced in the developing world if farmers had access to essential inputs: improved seeds, fertilisers, irrigation. Steps should also be taken to increase safe water supplies, improve sanitation and encourage good hygiene. It is reckoned that every $1 spent on water, sanitation and hygiene in the developing world gives a return of $9 - mainly through better health. It is vital to work for good health and so steps should also be taken to establish medical facilities throughout the entire country as soon as enough nurses and doctors can be found or trained. Education is vital and initially a plan to ensure that ALL children eventually have access to free primary school education should be drawn up. In African countries where numerous tongues are spoken, English or French, depending on geography, should be taught in schools as a second language. Infrastructure, too, should be tackled so that good transport and communications can be established which would also allow food supplies to be easily moved around the country in emergencies. And every family should have their own registered plot of land to build a home and to grow food. Having a fixed address also allows families to borrow money to improve their homes/ smallholdings as well as alerting the authorities to where schools and medical facilities may be needed. In this way, by giving people the 'basic tools', a government helps unlock the potential of the entire nation.

At the same time governments should strive to reduce wasteful bureaucracy and to free up the economy. In his book ‘The Mystery of Capital’ Hernando de Soto relates his experience in trying to set-up a small garment workshop in Peru. Getting a group of his students together, they set to work to find and complete all the necessary documents that were needed to set up a small business on the edge of Lima. After many days of painstaking work and bus journeys to numerous government departments, they finally managed to register the business as a legal entity after 9 months. And the cost of establishing this one man operation - over $1,200 (£745) or about 30 times the average monthly wage. Is it any surprise then that most business men/women in developing countries find it too time consuming and expensive to register thus losing the advantages of becoming a legal entity which include being able to borrow money to expand. Setting up businesses is vital for jobs which in turn will grow the economy. Bureaucracy like this is ludicrous and needs to be rewritten in user friendly terms.

Corporation tax should also be kept low so that companies can invest in future expansion helping to create even more jobs. Employment is vital in Africa as every job created fills the mouths of nine other people.

Foreign investment should be encouraged by the setting up of an economic development agency which can fast track investors through the various procedures needed to start up a company. Here, however, to maximise opportunities international business leaders will first need to be convinced that property rights are secure, contracts can be enforced and sound economic policies are in place. For no matter how attractive labour costs might be, very little foreign direct investment (FDI) will arrive if international companies sense unpredictable government. Poor areas of the world suffer from a lack of FDI and there is no greater example of this than in sub-Saharan Africa where, with 12% of the world's population, the area receives less than 1% of total FDI.

When it comes to foreign companies seeking to exploit natural resources in a developing country, the government there should agree that any investment would entail the government having a 49% shareholding in any joint-venture company set up. Then all the people of that country can benefit from the profits made.

By setting up in poor countries foreign firms bring in new technology, provide extra jobs and implement training and education programmes for their workers. And in time ancillary industries will spring up producing more jobs. Whatever goods are being produced will help the trade balance either by producing substitute goods for domestic use or through exporting them abroad. With increased numbers of people at work, tax revenues will increase and more money will be available for expanding the number of schools and hospitals and improving infrastructure. Foreign companies may seem to pay low wages but to workers in the developing world they pay well in relative terms. However, international labour standards in the number of hours worked, child labour and working conditions, should be adhered to.

(There is widespread concern voiced by international NGO's and poverty campaigners in the West about what they see as tax avoidance by most multilateral corporations (MLC's) as they seek to minimise taxes. As most African countries currently levy high corporation tax rates most MLC's invested in African economies try to minimise the amount of profits they have to pay there. This is mainly achieved through the setting up of subsidiary companies in countries with low taxes and then to move the paperwork - shipping costs, insurance charges, management fees etc.-, for the goods/agricultural products produced in Africa, through these in-house companies as the exports make their way to be sold in the West. Thus, through the use of tax havens, most profits on these exports are taxed at a very low rate of corporation tax in a third country. And this poverty campaigners see as MLC's not playing by the book and denying poor countries valuable taxation which could be used in social services. MLC's are perhaps being unethical in doing this though they are strictly speaking not breaking any rules. The answer then has to be for poor countries to levy low rates of corporation tax and then all activity associated with exports could be carried out in the country of origin thus creating many more jobs and reducing unemployment there which will lead to higher tax revenues.)

When it comes to corruption, examples of this are not just found in the developing world as recent cases involving FIFA, football's governing body, with unexplained payments and allegations of flawed bidding in the award to Qatar of the 2022 World Cup, and the regularity in the number of times funds seem to go missing from the EU budget prove. However, corruption is more prevalent in developing countries where the opportunities are greater due to poor pay and endless bureaucracy. There corruption comes in many guises including favouring friends for government contracts, police using protection rackets, stealing from employers, etc. And it usually has a devastating effect on economic life. In order to remove this blight the president/prime minister should set up an independent body with power to investigate anyone at any time including himself/ herself and all government ministers. This will reassure the people and any would be international investors that the government is working earnestly for the good of the country. A free press, too, would further help expose corrupt practices whilst helping to keep the government on its toes.

In an age when boundaries are virtually guaranteed, is there any need for poor nations to spend billions of dollars accumulating sophisticated arms? Procuring expensive weapons surely is a waste of valuable foreign currency and is a major area for gross corruption. Most governments in the North now say they no longer supply arms to the poorest countries. We have to take their word for that but rich countries should go further and extend this ban to include all developing countries. Internal security should be the responsibility of the police backed by an army of appropriate size and border disputes should always be settled by continental organisations like the African Union, or the UN. War should be avoided at all costs for it destroy in days what has taken years to build. A good leader should never forget this.

Putting all these policies into action will not be easy and for a long time social and economic indicators may show few signs of positive change - like attempting to turn round of an ocean liner. Some people may even become critical and the government seeing an election ahead may start to reach for easy options. But these should all be rejected. If a government is both seen to be honest and competent and working for the good of all the people, then the electorate will probably want to give that government a longer period for their policies to show results. For there is no alternative - history declares that better living standards can only be underwritten through an expanding economy.

So there should be no walking away when the going gets tough - governments need to be in for the long haul. And when their policies start to show results the economy will move forward rapidly, poverty indicators will decline, flight capital will start to return from abroad, overseas aid will increase, and even educated nationals who have been living abroad may consider returning.

There is no debate. Good government is the real 'wealth of nations'.

You would think, then, that good governance would be the first priority of the United Nations (UN). But you would be wrong. Even although all UN members have signed up to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, too many governments are still unable or unwilling to lay the foundations for social justice and economic advancement preferring to run their countries as their own private fiefdoms. And there is no challenge from any authority within the UN.

At the same time, you would think that, at least, when it comes to the giving of overseas aid, the rich developed nations of the world would seek to give their taxpayers money to governments in the developing world which are progressive so as to encourage good practice. Alas, here again you would be mistaken for due to a combination of trying to win friends, influence people, trying to keep up with China, and the need to secure vital supplies of natural resources, it means that for most OECD countries the quality of governance is of minor importance.

The continuing losers in all this, of course, are the people of Africa who are literally still living in biblical times.

In 2012, more than 60 years on from the setting up of the United Nations, this seems incomprehensible and surely those far-thinking political leaders who set up the UN in 1946 never envisaged that there would still be no minimum standards of governance after all this time. But sadly that is the reality. So today, the quality governance is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: everyone knows it is a fundamental problem in many developing nations but no country, no international body, no faith group, and even no pop group is prepared to confront it.

This, then, is the stark reality as the world's poor cry out for justice. Even though good governance is more important for unlocking the chains of poverty in developing countries than fairer trade, increased foreign aid, deeper debt relief and attempts to tackle climate change added together, without international pressure, this elephant is set to stay in the room wreaking continuing havoc with peoples' lives. And we really all ought to feel ashamed.

****************************************************************

There is an acceptance in our modern age that democracy is the gateway to good government or as Sir Winston Churchill once put it 'democracy is the least worst form of government'. And remarkably this form of government was first attempted in Iceland as long ago as AD 930 with the setting up of the 'Althing' - the world's first parliament.

site of 'Althing' - the world's first Parliament

Democracy is the only political system that guarantees free expression whilst helping to protect the people from economic and political catastrophes. This form of government where the people are allowed periodically to freely choose their own leaders encourages positive renewal as defeated political parties need to keep reshaping their policies in order to make themselves electable at the next poll. Today it is estimated that real democracy, where free and fair elections are held regularly, is now found in 89 countries representing 57% of the population of the world. Of the other countries in the world, some are pseudo democracies where, although there are periodic elections, the ruling party frequently bars opposition candidates from standing and restricts other parties access to the media. And if that doesn't work, as Jo Stalin once said "it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." In yet other countries autocratic regimes and military dictatorships range from the semi-tolerant e.g. China, Cuba to the reprehensible e.g. North Korea, Burma.

Many countries in the South, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have struggled to come to terms with democracy. There the political landscape that exists today is the result of the carving up of the continent by the European powers at the Berlin Conference in 1885. Into the melting pot went 10,000 kingdoms, tribes and federations mixed up with Christians, Muslims and other religions and when they came out they had metamorphosed into just 54 countries which for the most part were then ruled over by the colonial powers (e.g. UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal) until most gained independence in the 1960’s. Little training in administration was given to the indigenous people by their colonial masters and the few institutions that had put down roots in these countries struggled to survive after independence. And so with no middle class, tribal and religious conflicts breaking out and the political manoeuvrings of the Cold War pulling countries in different directions, it was little wonder that many of these newly independent states found themselves at the mercy of unscrupulous autocrats and military dictators as soon as the 'liberty' bell had been rung.

And that can be seen today as according to Freedom House, in 2011, only 9 countries in sub-Saharan Africa are considered to be democratic - Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana, Mauritius, Namibia, Sao Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone and South Africa. At the other end of the scale military despotism still dogs too many lands - Angola, Cameroon, Chad, Congo Republic, Congo Democratic Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Mauritania, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Zimbabwe - even after 50 years of independence.

just1world@just1world.org
© 2001, 2002 Just 1 World - All rights reserved - Legal
Site Designed by IWS
Hosted on the IWSNET network