Good government

Good government

‘Good government’ is a legitimate government which gives the citizen a feeling of safety, equality, and economic fairness combined with a social service and the ability to reform the government. I will discuss in my essay every aspect of this definition and show that every aspect is necessary for ‘good government,’ and therefore should be widely accepted. I will divide this essay in six parts.

            First I will show that legitimacy is the foundation of 'good government'. Legitimacy should be accepted as criteria because of the fact that a good government implicates the approval of the regime from the people. Second, I will show that internal and external security is elemental for the legitimacy of the government and hence for 'good government'. The security of the citizen is essential for 'good government'. My third point is a government which can be reformed is necessary for the long-term survival of a regime. This point should be accepted because government has to change and adapt in order to sustain the approval of the people. There will always be adjustments necessary to keep governing.  

The fourth point is going to show that social security and social services are necessary for a stable economy and the population’s acceptances of the government. This is already accepted by most countries.  In my fifth point I will show that a fair and partly controlled economy is necessary for the well being of the population. This point should be accepted because an uncontrolled economy helps to divide the population and brings aggression.  In the last point I will try to show that equality is part of ‘good government’. This last point will show that ‘good government’ provides equal rights for all its citizens.

A legitimate government

A legitimate government is an important part of my definition of good government because if the government is legitimate it provides a satisfying service to the people. If the government would not be legitimate that would mean that the majority of the population does not approve of the government’s service. The problem with legitimacy is that it is hard to define when a government is legitimate and when it is not. “While there have historically been many forms of legitimacy, in today’s world the only serious form of legitimacy is Democracy” (Fukuyama 2004a: 27). Therefore is it nearly impossible to define a non democratic government as legitimate because we do not have a direct vote of the people about the legitimacy of the government.

However, there are some indicators for the legitimacy of non democratic governments. The major indicator is a free press if the government allows an open critic on its policy. That is an indicator for its legitimacy. This is the case if there are a variety of opinions in the press. If the united press is asking the leader of the government to step down then we can suggest that is an indicator for a non-legitimacy Government.

            The second indicator for legitimacy is when the regime has self controlling mechanisms. “State institutions that act as oversight mechanisms to prevent improper state action and improve governance can also be established in the pursuit of good governance. These institutions include state auditors, electoral commissions, anti-corruption commissions, and various forms of national human rights institutions” (Reif 2000: 1-2). When these institutions work then is it acceptable to assume that this improves the legitimacy of the government.

            Therefore it should be generally accepted to define a good government as a legitimate government because if it is not legitimate it is a weak government. “Weak here refers to a state strength, not to a scope to tutorial capacity to implement and enforce policies, often driven by an underlining lack of legitimacy of the political system as a whole” (Fukuyama 2004a: 96).  If the government is weak and cannot provide the service the people expect, it  will go down like every weak regime.  No government will be sustained in the long-term if it lacks legitimacy. This is an widely accepted part of ‘good government’ because most countries are democratic and therefore legitimate.

Internal and external security

            The use of violence has always been part of society. Hobbes tells us the three reasons why people use violence. “The first use of violence is to make themselves master of other man’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession or their name”(Hobbes 1962: 143).

            To prevent all of these uses of violence is to create a system of law and order for people to obey if they want to be part of society. But that is not the only reason why we need internal and external security in a well-governed society. There need to be as well a defense against a minority which tries to overthrow the government from within the society.  The society needs to be stable and united to have a common power. “Where there is no common power there is no law: where no law, no justice” (Hobbes 1962: 145).

            A well-governed state needs security and laws; if there is no law and order there will be no progress.  Because in times without this security there is no place for industry; because the fruit therefore is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth and no evolvement in the human nature itself (Hobbes 1962: 143).

            We can see that a regime without internal and external security is no strong regime.

“Strength in this sense includes, as noted above, the ability to enact statutes and to frame and execute policies; to administer the public business with relative efficiency; to control graft, corruption, and bribery; to maintain high levels of transparency and accountability in governmental institutions; and most importantly, to enforce laws” (Fukuyama 2004b: 22).

Therefore internal and external security are part of good government and so indispensable for the definition of good government. This is widely accepted because every state has an executive, a legislative and a judicial system.

The need to reform

            The need to reform a government or a whole regime is elemental for the long-term survival of a regime. To explain the need for reforms and change is part of the human nature which Hayek demonstrates in the following.

“But the growth of the human mind is part of the growth of civili­zation; it is the state of civilization at any given moment that determines the scope and the possibilities of human ends and values. The mind can never foresee its own advance. Though we must always strive for the achievement of our present aims, we must also leave room for new experiences and future events to decide which of these aims will be achieved”(Hayek F.A. 1960: 24).

We can see out of this argument that is it impossible to have a perfectly evolved regime.

The evolution of the humans themselves will always go over the limit of every regime. Therefore is it impossible to have a final definition of ‘good government’ and a final social system. We are always going to change the political system in which we live.

 ”Some of these will also be merely temporary adaptations to the conditions of the moment, while others will be improvements that increase the versatility of the existing tools and usages and will therefore be retained. These latter will constitute a better adapta­tion not merely to the particular circumstances of time and place but to some permanent feature of our environment” (Hayek F.A. 1960: 33).

            Because of these facts is it impossible to have a definition of ‘good government’ without recognising the need for change. Furthermore it is proving that there is no definition of ‘good government’ which can be forever.  If people are going to change the regime has to allow this change. If it does not allow the reform it will not sustain it in the future. This is a widely accepted part of ‘good government’ because every regime permanently reforms itself through a revolution, like the French revolution, or through peaceful reforms, like the patriot act in the united state shows.

Social security and social services

            Many countries tried to cut social services and social security in the past. Arguments for these cuts were that these services are too expensive. Another argument is that people are lazy and if they see the chance to drop out of the working system and are still able to have a more or less decent lifestyle they will quit their jobs. Furthermore there is a conflict between rich and poor because the people with jobs are going to pay for the people who do not have a job. But there are problems for countries that cut their state scoop. “The problem for many countries was that in the process for reducing state scoop they either decreased state strength or generated demands for new types of state capacities that were either rare or non-existence”(Fukuyama 2004a: 15).

            People want welfare, labour rights, health care and education. This demand shows us that social security and social services have to be part of the definition of ‘good government’. A good example of this need is given by need for a treatment of AIDS. “Effective treatment requires a strong public-health infrastructure, public education, and knowledge about the epidemiology of the disease in specific regions” (Fukuyama 2004b: 18).

            Therefore we can see that it is as well in the interest of the regime itself to keep diseases like this out of the country and give people social services to fight them. South Africa for example just changed their laws that the medicine needed can be produced to lower costs so nearly everybody can afford them. This shows that social service is already a widely accepted part of the definition of ‘good government’. This brings me to my next point; a fair economy.

Fair economy

            A fair economy means that the government provides the best possible services for the economic stability and economic growth of the country without harming the interest of citizens. This is part of the social security discussed above. It is in the interest of the citizen and in the interest of the regime to provide a good service for individuals who want to open a business or who have problems with a business. A good example for the inefficiency of these institutions is made by Fukuyama.

“De Soto sent researchers to find out what it would take to get a small business licensed in Lima, Peru. Ten months, 11 offices, and US$1,231 later, they came back with the papers.” (Fukuyama 2004b: 29).

            This example shows that through inefficient governmental institutions economic growth is made impossible. If the government does not offer an easy way to start businesses or protect the producer from unfair business methods they will harm the legitimacy of their government and they will not have a similar economic success than if they would provide this service. In the long run the government would create a two class system where the rich and influential do the business and the poor and unprotected suffer under exploitation.

            The government would be afraid of this drift because it would bring the perfect environment for a revolution. “In the nineteenth century fear of revolution coupled with a more sensitive conscience eventually caused governments to intervene in what had been regarded as private matters like sending children down coal mines or up chimneys or indeed slavery itself”(Charkham 2005: 11). This practice of interfering in the businesses does create trust into the regime and into the government.

            Therefore we can say that a fair economy is elemental for the definition of good government because it provides economic growth and stability. This is widely accepted in nearly every government as outlined above. Because “many economists have concluded that some of the most important variables affecting development are not economic but institutional and political in nature” (Fukuyama 2004b: 29). The only problem of a fair economy today is that the influence of the economy in the government’s system is way too big. A good example is the argument of Marone about the social health system in the USA.  “I argue that the market ideology is the biggest obstacle to health care equity because in market theory, distribution is not supposed to follow need. It is supposed to follow economic demand” (Marone 2005: 66). 

Equality

            All the points I outlined above are proven to be theoretical or already practically accepted in many nations today. This is demonstrated by Kofi Annan.

“U.N programs now target virtually all the key elements of good governance: safeguarding the rule of law; verifying elections; training police; monitoring human rights; fostering investment; and promoting accountable administration. Good governance is also a component of our work for peace. It has strong preventive aspect; it gives societies sound structures for economical and social development” (cited in Reif 2000: 17). 

            Even if Kofi Annan does not speak about the necessity of social services and a fair economy it is implied in the points of ‘human rights’ and of an ‘accountable administration’. Therefore we can see that ‘human rights’ combined with an ‘accountable administration’ are not just promoting the idea of the right to live but as well as to be treated by the state like anybody else.  As well as the duty of the regime to give the human all services and security required to have a ‘happy’ existence. This harmonised system is just possible on the basis that every individual is treated equal because everybody is in fact equal. “Nature made man so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; as that through there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim himself any benefit witch another may not pretend, as well as he” (Hobbes 1962: 141).

            The equality of mankind is an old idea but it just recent that politics have built up on this idea. That equality is part of ‘good government’ is widely accepted. We may see examples for that in the American constitution as well as in the constitutions of many other countries. Equality is the base for social justice, a fair economy and ‘good government’ as a whole.

             ‘Good government’ is for me defined upon the legitimacy of the regime. If the regime would not be legitimate the government will not be and therefore it is a potential source for civil unrest and revolution.  Internal and external security is part of my definition of ‘good government’ because a society without law and order, without security will not succeed in reality.

            A regime with the ability to transform and reform is part of my definition of ‘good government’ because it will not sustain without the adaptation on the society and the evolvement of mankind. Social security and social services are part of my definition of ‘good government’ because a population will never accept a regime which does not serve the basic needs of society.  A fair economy is part of ‘good government’ because the equilibrium of government and economy has to be in a way that the government helps to develop the economy but the economy should never rule the government.

  Equality is necessary for the definition of ‘good government’ because a non equal society will lead to a revolution in the long term.   

Bibliography

Charkham, Jonathan P.; Ploix, Helen (2005) Keeping Better Company: Corporate Governance Ten Years on (United Kingdom: Oxford Oxford University Press)

Fukuyama Francis (2004a) State building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century                                                                                (USA: Cornell University Press)

Fukuyama Francis (2004b) ‘The Imperative of State-Building’, Journal of Democracy Vol.15:2

Hayek F.A. (1960) The Constitution of liberty (England: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.)

Hobbes T. (1962) Leviathan (Great Britain: Cox and Wyman Ltd.)

Marone A.J. and Lawrence R.J. (2005) Healthy, Wealthy, & Fair: Health Care and the Good Society (New York: Ocford University Press, Inc.)

Reif L.C. (2000) Building Democratic Institutions: The role of National Human Rights Institutions in Good Governance and Human Rights Protection, Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol. 13:1