The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is convinced that good governance is the real key to narrowing the rich poor gap and alleviating poverty in the world. For the past decade or more, the UNDP has been encouraging the “capacity building” of local governments and decentralization of power in many developing countries. Their reasoning is quite simple: if all citizens in a country are actively involved in their governance and have an influential voice in the running of their country, resource use will be more equitable; and the gap between rich and poor will grow smaller.

Decentralization of control implies an increased governance responsibility for local officials. This may be the hardest thing to do for people at higher levels who are accustomed to exerting control over their “subordinates” while maintaining control over the treasury.

Allowing local governments a crucial role in the governance of a nation implies giving them control over the purse strings of the country. The first step in this process is holding officials accountable for the funds they receive. Also critical is the involvement of local people in the planning and implementation of projects that will benefit them directly. The UNDP has also shown that countries that budget a larger percentage for social spending are more likely to encourage effective decentralization of governance.

Most people would agree that good governance often, but not always, thrives in the context of democracy. Worldwide, the trend appears to be in the direction of more democratic governments. By the turn of the century 61 percent of the countries of the world had some form of democratic government as opposed to 28 percent in 1974. Local governments would likely be more effective if they were founded on democratic principles such as universal suffrage, free and fair elections, free speech and press, and if they included other safeguards against the abuse of power by a small group or an individual leader. Even in countries like the United States there is much that could be done to revitalize that process, including campaign finance reform and stricter controls on lobbying.

The late 20th and early 21st centuries have witnessed the total failure of a number of states, because of protracted civil war; still others are unprepared for self-government after years of dependency on another country. Often it is tempting to offer a one-size-fits-all solution for these countries, beginning with the imposition of a full-blown democracy. Frequently the results of this “instant democracy” solution are disastrous. Instead of focusing on providing basic services, valuable energy is squandered on building political parties or other aspects of the electoral process, which are simply inappropriate for a country in such dire straits.

Nations recovering from years of internal conflict are simply not prepared for intense citizen mobilization required by the democratic process. With those totally failed states, experts have suggested an international/United Nations takeover of many government functions until the ailing nation is healed adequately. This amounts to “nation building” aided by the presence of international peacekeeping troops. Democratization is certainly an essential part of building good governance but it requires extensive education, institution building and time.

The same lessons apply to the many so-called transitional governments of the world like Yemen, Somalia, or Cambodia. These countries are still drafting effective regulations, improving the basic functions of government, and encouraging the development of a free press. One of the most valuable forms of international assistance for these fledgling democracies is training programs for administrators from village to provincial to national levels. At the same time, we can assist in the creation and expansion of local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) — the heart of a healthy civil society.

In building good governance one can start at any point in the process —“top” or “bottom” — and produce positive results. Honest, dedicated leaders are essential, and much can be done to identify and cultivate the qualities of leadership in schools and training institutions.

It makes sense to educate people politically at the local level and it’s also important to hold national politicians and civil servants accountable. Transparency International (TI), an international NGO has developed a “Corruption Fighter Toolkit”, which enables developing and industrialized nations to improve their ranking on an international Corruption Index.

Other methods already exist that are designed to combat corruption and promote good governance. There is a growing body of international law designed to establish standards of environmental practice and treatment of workers, to name just a few. For example, the ILO has set up fair standards concerning child labor and working conditions that would assist governments in establishing their own codes. The recently established International Criminal Court, by trying those accused of crimes against humanity, will accomplish the same thing in the field of human rights law. Regional organizations like the Organization of African Unity, Organization of American States, and the European Union are in a position to influence good governance by offering training as well as devising ways of maintaining existing international standards.

Many western countries like the United States have reached a critical impasse in the development of their own democratic institutions. With voter participation declining in even important presidential elections, some of the key elements of good governance are clearly lacking. Many reasons are given for the cynicism and disengagement of voters, but what one most often hears is that “the system is too complicated” or “nobody listens to me” or “politicians are corrupt and uninterested.”

The antidote to such negative attitudes clearly involves education, but other systemic reforms are also required. For example, until enforceable law limits the financial contributions of special interest groups, the voice of the common citizen will not count as much as it could. Similarly, governments can hold true to their role of protector and regulator of the interests of the common citizen rather than subsidizing large corporations simply because of their economic power.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

next in depth issue