The anatomy of good and bad governance: From liberalism to liberation (I)

“Little by little however, the process of generalisation takes effect”, Georgi Plekhanov.   The process of generalisation is nowhere more pronounced than in the discourse on the typology of governments in the sense of their being “good” or “bad”. This article seeks to contextualise the approach to examining governance from a particular ideological standpoint that […]

“Little by little however, the process of generalisation takes effect”, Georgi Plekhanov.

 

The process of generalisation is nowhere more pronounced than in the discourse on the typology of governments in the sense of their being “good” or “bad”. This article seeks to contextualise the approach to examining governance from a particular ideological standpoint that seeks precision in locating the discourse on exact premises that can be determined by simple logic or the practical application of a set of criteria.

Philosophers have examined the subject of governance and its attributes from different standpoints and perspectives. They have also expatiated on the modes of governments and the ideal purposes of the state in societies since ancient times. Their viewpoints and interpretations may differ dramatically and even radically, but the thrust of their arguments all boil down to achieving the best form of government that offers the highest form of felicity and concord to society, and advances the objectives of civilisation a notch higher than the level at which societies find themselves.

This transformative objective or character of government is therefore a critical element in our understanding of its utility and appreciation of its quality whether it should be judged as “good” or “bad”. According to the historical-materialist conception or interpretation, the form of government of a country reflects its overall and predominant mode of economic production. It is upon this foundation that the superstructures of laws, administration, social relations and political arrangements etc., are predicated, to form what we consider as the “state” in social and political science parlance.

This has already been made clear by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in their historic work, the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. Therein they wrote about the “modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto”. Glimpses of this standpoint can be found also in Marx’s “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, “The Civil War in France”, and other works. The same postulation was advanced by Georgi Plekhanov in his seminal work “Socialism and the Political Struggle” and by other Marxists in various works on politics and philosophy.

Accordingly, subjective as well as objective factors like government, “freedom” of the press, legislation, liberty, equality and so forth, that form the bedrock of bourgeois political theory and practice, should be examined and understood from the perspectives of their economic origin and class characters, that drive the essence of their being and the ultimate purpose of their existence. It is only after such an exercise that we can begin to attribute any classifications to the forms of government in societies to determine whether they are “good” or “bad” depending on our own class biases and political standpoints as against the prevailing outlook of those in power at a given time and context.

Thus, it is possible that deciding whether a government is good or bad must entail a closer and rational examination of the economic foundation of the society in question in order to clearly understand the political construction that has been superimposed on that foundation, so as to correctly appreciate the character of such a society and its government. What constitutes “bad government” for instance, is a subjective process that can become an objective assessment when examined from the economic dimensions that are obtaining in a given country. The elements of bad government can simply be determined through a deductive process of establishing the absence of good governance.

It is generally agreed that good government is brought about by such conceptions and practices as observance of rule of law, efficient service delivery, competent management of state apparatuses, effective enforcement of laws, transparency in decision-making, observance of due process, minimum level of corruption and nepotism, the sensible enjoyment of freedoms, the availability of decent means of livelihoods to citizens, the security of lives and property, and other positive attributes that conduce towards a successful form of governance in a country.

The epitome of good government can be found in the level of satisfaction of the citizenry in their condition of existence and the security that they enjoy at a given time in the development of their country’s political process. This in turn is determined by the level of advancement of the country’s productive forces and economic development upon which the rest of society is predicted. Having made those points clear, it is vital that the factor of good government and its existence or otherwise in Nigeria should be judiciously addressed from a particular standpoint.

This standpoint must be from the class perspective whereby the assessment of what makes for good government is determined not by the classes that are in power, but from those of the masses particularly the proletariat or working classes of this country. It is upon this premise that we can proceed to discuss this simultaneously subjective and objective subject matter, to bring about an understanding of the prevailing conditions in our country. The main driver of the recent #ENDBADGOVERNANCE protest across Nigeria is discontent brought about by economic factors that have become almost endemic in their pervasiveness and affliction of the generality of the citizenry. To what extent these difficulties can be simultaneously addressed and remedied by “good government” is a necessary exercise that must be undertaken to establish or ascertain what direction governance should take in Nigeria.

 

NB: Ambassador Sarki is a retired career diplomat who was involved in crafting and execution of Nigeria’s foreign policy. He was appointed an ambassador in 2012 and posted to the Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations in New York as Deputy Permanent Representative. He served in that capacity until 2016.

Ambassador Sarki will now be our columnist on this space.