Unit 3.1:
What is Good Governance?

 
Handout
Five Scenarios: For Discovering Your Own Leadership Style
These small case studies highlight some important aspects of effective leadership and sensitive communication. Imagine that you are faced with the following situations. Read each one carefully and think about what you would do in each case. Then circle the letter of your choice.

You are the owner of a busy clothes shop in town. You have noticed that one of your shop assistants is becoming more and more ‘lost’. He has begun to arrive late for work; he is getting more and more untidy – and he sometimes smells of drink.

  • You seek a good opportunity to have a talk with him. You express your concern for his welfare and you invite him to discuss any problems he might be experiencing.
  • You tell him what you have noticed about his changed behaviour. You point out that what he is doing is unacceptable – and you warn him that, unless he pulls himself together, he could well lose his job. 

You are the Officer-in-Charge of a rural health facility. The Chairman of the Facility Management Committee is a retired senior Public Health Officer. He is often in the facility – almost every day, in fact. You notice that he has begun to give orders to your support staff members about the cleaning and clearing duties in the facility and the compound.

  • You remind him who is in charge of the facility and tell him that he should stop giving orders to the support staff.
  • You engage him in a discussion about roles and responsibilities – asking him to explain his perception of what the relationship should be between the Chairman and the Officer-in-Charge.

You are the Chairman of the Board of Governors of a small secondary school. You have become increasingly perturbed about the state of the school. Despite concerns being raised at board meetings, the compound is very bushy; the floors of the classrooms are often un-swept. The Headmaster seems to be losing his grip. He frequently arrives for work later than his teaching staff. Parents have begun to complain that he is not available for interviews…..

  • You go to the school, remind the headmaster about concerns already raised in board meetings – and you tell him that he must sort out the problems you have noticed.
  • You go to the school, express your concern about the problems you and the board members have noticed – and you invite the Headmaster to discuss any constraints he is facing and to suggest what needs to be done.  

 4. The Ruffled Minister


You are the Managing Editor of a newly launched newspaper. A Minister, one of the ‘inner group’ and someone who enjoys frequent publicity, has rung you to complain about one of your young reporters who, he says, was ‘impertinent’ when he interviewed the Minister about some controversial statements he had made in a Press Conference.
  • You warn the reporter of the likely consequences of offending the Minister – and you advise him to be more careful about his manner.
  • You tell the reporter what the MP has said – and you invite him to tell you what happened.

You are chairing a Council Meeting. When you need to reach a decision on an important matter, two of the councillors are causing some embarrassment – and disrupting the proceedings – by persistently getting into a heated argument with each other.

  • You remind the committee of the deadline that you face in reaching the decision – and decide to have a quiet word with the couple after the meeting.
  • You tell the pair to stop their quarrelling in the meeting – and tell them that what they are doing is preventing the committee from reaching its decision on the matter in hand.

Noting Your Score
Here is a score sheet for the exercise on leadership styles, which you have just completed. In each column, for each scenario, circle the letter representing the response you chose.

Scenario

Column 1

Column 2

1

B

A

2

A

B

3

A

B

4

A

B

5

B

A

Total (circles)

 

 

If you have scored three or more circles in either of the columns, then it is indicative that this is your preferred style: what you will do on most occasions when you face leadership decisions. Though of course, the accuracy of the forecast depends on how honest you have been with yourself! It can be very revealing to get someone who knows you well to complete the questionnaire on your behalf – according to what they would expect you to do. To give names to these leadership styles, we can say that:
Column 1 responses represent the AUTHORITARIAN style;
Column 2 responses represent the DEMOCRATIC style.
As you will see in what follows, we can distinguish between the two styles by using simple diagrams, which show the pattern of interaction in each case – the communication that occurs between a leader and his or her group when a problem situation arises.

Authoritarian

When we have situations as in the five examples we have just explored when some kind of problem has to be tackled, there are three main elements: the leader, the problem he faces, and the group he is leading. In relation to these three elements, the authoritarian style can be diagrammed as follows:

     LEADER

 



                                                         
                                                   1            2                        3

 

PROBLEM                                        GROUP

The leader makes his own assessment of the problem (1)
He decides what action to take (2)
He then communicates his decision to the group and sees that it is implemented (3)
Sometimes, of course – particularly in times of emergency – the authoritarian style is the appropriate one to adopt. But being authoritarian or directive is inappropriate when a leader exhibits the following behaviours:

Democratic
Considering the same three elements, for a democratic or facilitating style the interaction would be:

         LEADER

 



                                                           
                                                      1                                        3         

 

PROBLEM                                          GROUP

                                                                        2

Both the leader and the group have an opportunity to study and make an assessment of the problem (1 & 2)
However, the leader might take the initiative in posing ideas for his group to comment on. There is a discussion of the issues and a decision is taken by the group (3)

The positive behaviours of a democratic or facilitating leader are:

Note that, within the democratic style, the leader might still take a relatively ‘strong’ role in the decision making process. In fact, there is a mid-way position between the authoritarian and the democratic styles, which we might call ‘consulting’ – where the leader alone makes the decision, but only after asking for the views of his colleagues.

None of these styles – Authoritarian, Consulting or Democratic – is necessarily good or bad, of course. Which one is appropriate will depend on the circumstances. You might like to consider, in very general terms, the strengths and weakness of each of the styles – and in what circumstances each should be used. However, a note of caution: whereas most people say they prefer the democratic style (and many leaders actually claim that they use it) in practice, many of them seem to employ the authoritarian style – rarely, if ever, going down even the consulting road.

 


Background Information

 

Leadership and Governance

Leadership is the key factor in governance – in whatever sphere. In countries, as well as in business organisations or sports teams, leadership is needed in order to give a sense of direction and to achieve goals. In all the analyses of leadership styles there is a broad agreement that there are basically two styles: authoritarian leadership and democratic leadership.

The Authoritarian Style
Authoritarian leaders do not consult with their people, or even with their colleagues, when making decisions. They behave in a paternalistic manner, believing that they know what is good for their people. They dictate what they decide needs to be done. They are not tolerant of opposing views or differences of opinion. They are often impatient when it comes to talking of civil and political rights.

The Democratic Style
Democratic leaders recognise that they are acting in the interests of their people. They are ready to make themselves accountable to the people they lead and to the institutions they head. They encourage as many people as possible to be part of the decision making process. They do not discriminate against individuals or groups.

 
Summary of Leadership Styles


Authoritarian

Democratic
  • Authoritarian leaders behaves as though the leader is supreme;
  • They do not consult;
  • They do not engage in participatory decision making processes;
  • They tend to exclude some people or groups;
  • They do not tolerate opposing views;
  • They are impatient of criticism;
  • They are not prepared to guarantee civil and political rights.

 
  • Democratic leaders behave as though the people are supreme;
  • They consult when making decisions;
  • They encourage people to engage in participatory decision making;
  • They are inclusive as well as consultative;
  • They are tolerant of opposing views;
  • They take note of criticisms;
  • They are ready to guarantee civil and political rights.

 

For democratic systems to work they need to be headed by democratic leaders. In Africa, what we have had since Independence is that leaders inherited democratic structures – parliamentary systems of government – but many of them were not willing, or not able, to manage those systems in a democratic manner.

But, having defined democracy in the previous module, perhaps we should now agree on a working definition in order to carry on a discussion of governance.

 

Governance: A definition

Governance, in its broadest sense, is a word that is often used these days when referring to the way relations are managed between people within organisations – and, in our case, we are particularly concerned with the management of public affairs.

At the state level, of course, governance is the work of the Government – those institutions that have been set up and those individuals who have been chosen by the people and to whom certain powers and responsibilities have been delegated.

So the Government is a mechanism for the governance of the state. The Government is one of the key institutions for exercising authority within the state. It is not surprising, therefore, that the words ‘governance’ and ‘government’ are often used in the same context.

But the Government is not the only actor in the governance of society. In fact, governance can be seen in action at different levels within society.

 

Levels of governance

Within the family             
At the family level, increasingly it is accepted that all members should share duties and tasks. (Though it can be argued that the authoritarian style of leadership that we often see in our public institutions is, to a certain extent, only a mirroring of the behaviour of male heads of traditional homesteads!)

But good governance within the family is a matter of promoting discussion about those issues that will have an impact on the wellbeing of either individual members or the family as a whole. Discussion helps to ease tension; it also fosters teamwork within the family.

Within the community
When we move from the family to the community level, more people are involved – and so the decision-making process becomes more complicated. The more people there are, the more interest groups there are – the more ‘agendas’ there will be. As more individuals and groups are affected by whatever decisions are taken, the more difficult it becomes to respond to everyone’s needs and to accommodate to everyone’s wishes. And so decisions are made by a few nominated or elected individuals.

Members of a village, a township or a clan, need to agree on actions to be taken if harmony is to be maintained. So all members need access to communication channels – and they need to feel that their interests are being fairly represented.

Within the state
Within the nation-state, of course, there is a multiplication in the number of groups with different interests to which the governing institutions have to listen and, if possible, respond. This is only possible if the government keeps its channels of communication open.

So one important aspect of good governance relates to open communication and the manner in which the governing institutions make sure that the interests of all people within the state are heard, considered and, if possible, satisfied. And it is a prime responsibility of the state that all its different groups of people are able to co-exist – willingly and peacefully.

Good governance, then, requires the government to abide by the rule of law and uphold the key democratic principles of:

 

Abiding by the rule of law means respecting the laws of the state and the regulations that maintain order and harmony within society. It also means that the laws should be applied to all people without any favour or any discrimination.

 

The participation principle

A principle that has been implied so far in these discussions of democracy and governance is that democratic processes and good governance involve participation. So good state governance means that the whole population is in some way involved in decision-making. It means that citizens at all levels of the society should be able to talk about, and be party to, the decisions on how society affairs should be administered.

If the people are not consulted, then the decisions that are made might well be against their interests, fall sort of their dreams and frustrate their wishes. When this happens, people lose interest, become disillusioned – and sometime they engage in acts of disobedience.

As noted above, in a society such as Kenya’s, where there are such diverse ethnic and racial groups, the needs of the population are also bound to be diverse. But, while it might not be possible to accommodate all the diverse views and proposals, it is vital that there should be mechanisms for communication and consultation about needs, interests and requests.

When there is good governance, people of different cultures and different economic status can be brought together; there is fair play – no single ‘interest group’ is favoured in the decision-making processes. Only when there is good governance will people be inclined to unite as a nation – will relate to each other in sharing common development goals. Only when there is good governance will it be possible to maintain a peaceful and stable society.
Key organs of state governance

State governance is carried out through various institutions (or departments) of government. At the national level, the key ones are:

 

The roles and functions of these institutions have already been discussed in Module 2. So you will realise how important a part they play in the management of public affairs. The Parliament makes laws. The Executive carries out these laws. The Judiciary interprets them and arbitrates when there are disputes.

Each of the three main institutions of government has ultimate authority within its own sphere of operation. To counteract any misuse of power by any of the three, they are kept separate from each other – and, in the interests of promoting good governance – they are subject to various ‘checks and balances’. But it should also be recognised that the three main organs of government do reinforce each other. In fact, they depend on each other.

For example, the Executive includes Ministers – making up the Cabinet – who are appointed by the President. But they are also in Parliament as elected representatives of the people. So Ministers are in both the Executive and Parliament. Also, the Civil Service – the professional branches of state administration – is also part of the Executive arm of government.     

One important principle by which the state government normally operates is that of ‘collective responsibility’. This means that, in relation to Cabinet decisions, once a decision is taken, all the Ministers should support that decision – whatever their personal opinions. The objective is that the Cabinet Ministers should work as a team. However, this does not always happen in Kenya – as we saw in the 2005 referendum on the Constitution, when the Ministers were split between the Banana and Orange camps.

 

Summary of Functions


Parliament

Executive

Judiciary

Represents the interests of the people;
Makes the laws of the country;
Authorises the allocation of public resources;
Keeps a check on abuses of power.

Makes policy;
Provides public services;
Manages public resources;
Maintains public order and security;
Manages relations with other governments.

Interprets the law;
Administers justice through the courts;
Arbitrates in disputes.

 

 
The Provincial Administration

Though it has been a subject of some debate, the Provincial Administration has been continued from the years of colonial rule and it has remained an important agency of the government’s Executive – one that directly links the government to the people.

As shown in the following diagram, the levels involved in the Provincial Administration starts at the top with the Office of the President (OP) and move down through the Provincial Commissioners (PCs), the District Commissioners (DCs), the District Officers (DOs), the Chiefs in the locations and the Assistant Chiefs in the sub-locations.

 

Office of the President (OP)
 


                        Provincial Commissioner (PC)
                            

                        District Commissioner (DC)
 



                          
                        District Officer (DO)
                           

                        Chief
 



                           
                        Assistant Chief

 

As in colonial times, the main role of the Provincial Administration is to carry out national government decisions at the various levels – and the officers are the representatives of government at their respective levels.

The main responsibility of the Provincial Administration is the internal security of the country. The actual responsible officers, with regard to security, are the Chairpersons of the Security Committees at the different levels.

But, in more general terms, the officers of the Provincial Administration supervise development in their areas and mobilise support for development projects. The authority of the Provincial Administration is derived from the Chiefs Act – and Act that has been amended over the years in order to reduce the powers of the Chiefs.


 

Local Authorities

At the local level, and in sense parallel to the Provincial Administration, local authorities are the institutions of local government. Most important – and increasing in importance – the local authorities have a responsibility for the delivery of basic service. But the functions of the local authorities have already been described in the second module. What, perhaps, we should do here is reflect on the complexities of the relationship between the Provincial Administration – the officers appointed by government – and the local councillors – the representatives elected by the people. As we saw in Unit 2.4.there are certainly overlaps in the different mechanisms set up for promoting development at the local level. Over recent years, especially in the debates on constitutional reform, there has been a focus on whether the Provincial Administration should be radically reformed or even disbanded.      

 

Relationship between the Government and the People

In ancient Greece, the ‘home of democracy’, governance must have been a relatively simple matter. The society was small enough and the people were homogenous enough for all ‘freeborn citizens’ to take a direct part in government. Decisions could be taken in a general assembly of the people. Also, the issues at stake were perhaps much less complex than they are in today’s more technologically advanced but more fragmented society. (And the same was true, no doubt, in the kinds of pre-colonial African societies that we have discussed in Unit 2.2.)

So, in the modern world, issues of governance have become more specialised and more difficult. As we have discussed in the previous module on democracy, just the size of populations in the modern state means that not all members of the society can participate directly in governance decisions. They participate in an indirect way by electing their representatives. The people they elect retain office for a set period of time – before they ‘offer themselves’ for re-election.

The assumption is that those who are elected will act on behalf of, and in the interests of, those who elected them. So there is good reason, in a modern society, to be particularly concerned about the motives, the qualities and the behaviour of those who are elected as leaders. Which brings us back to the first section of this unit and leads us on to the next unit – on the management of public resources.

 

When Governance is Bad Governance

There are a number of factors – all seen here in Kenya – that are a blight on governance structures and processes:

Corruption
In the context of public affairs – and this is something taken up in more detail in the following unit – corruption is the abuse or misuse of public office. It is a matter of officials, whether appointed or elected, improperly and unlawfully enriching themselves or those close to them. It is often a matter of public officials stealing public funds or using public funds for personal benefit.

Bribery is corruption – giving money or some other reward in order to persuade someone to act in our favour. It is an act of corruption when a policeman takes a bribe in order to let a motorist get away with a traffic offence. And, of course, the person who gives the bribe is just as guilty as the person who takes it.

Extortion is another form of corruption – when someone uses his power over someone else in order to demand money or other kind of favour. Again, if the same policeman harasses an innocent young man walking home late at night and eventually demands some small payment to not make any further trouble – that is extortion. And so is a person in a powerful position putting pressure on a businessman to make a harambee contribution.

The fight against corruption will be successful only if both the people and the government take action.

Nepotism
When someone favours his own relatives over other individuals, in securing a job, in granting promotion, in gaining any other kind of privilege – this is nepotism. The motive is often to have people close to you who you can trust. The consequence is that too many people are in jobs or carrying out functions for which they are not qualified. The end result is inefficiency on the part of the one who is favoured – and disillusionment on the part of those who deserve such positions but who get passed over.

Political patronage
When a powerful person offers his support, his protection, or his gifts – this is patronage. Political patronage is where a politician offers such things in order to maintain his political position.

When people are appointed to positions because of their experience and expertise, and not because of corruption, nepotism or patronage – this is a scenario we can call a meritocracy. The core meaning of meritocracy is that the appointment of people is based on merit.   

Corruption, nepotism and political patronage – these are all obstacles in the way of establishing good governance.

 

      
 


Notes for Facilitators

Objectives

 

Sequence
1. The Scenario
The handout provides you with a lively and focused way of raising issues of governance and of helping participants to distinguish between what the textbooks normally call ‘authoritarian’ and ‘democratic’ styles of leadership.
First, give out only the sheet with the five mini case studies and make sure that the participants understand the instruction – that, in reading each one they should simply circle which of the two responses they themselves would make.
When all have finished this task, give out the rest of the sheets and explain how the participants should work out their scores – by, in each column and for each scenario, circling the letter representing the response they had chosen.
By a show of hands establish the extent to which the group has opted for either the authoritarian or the democratic approach in making the range of leadership decisions.
Ask the participants to read through the rest of the handout, which summarises the differences between the two styles.
Check if the group has responded in the way most (in fact, all) groups do – while most people say they prefer the democratic style (and many leaders actually claim that they use it) in practice, many of them seem to employ the authoritarian style – rarely, if ever, going down even the consulting road.
Then ask the questions:

              
This should lead to a very interesting discussion – and make sure that you record the main points that emerge.

2. Levels of Governance
Give a brief presentation on the three levels where governance is exercised: family, community and state – recognising that the issue becomes more complex the larger the group that has to be ‘governed’ – and consider how the leadership scenario exercise can be related to governance at the three different levels. For example:

 

3. The Participation Principle
Note that the principle that has been strongly implied so far in all discussions of democracy and governance is that democratic processes and good governance involve participation. Put the argument from the text that good state governance means that the whole population is in some way involved in decision-making. It means that citizens at all levels of the society should be able to talk about, and be party to, the decisions on how society affairs should be administered.
Ask:

 

4. Key Organs of State Governance
Run through the three organs of state government and governance: Parliament, Executive, and the Judiciary. In a brief brainstorming session, review the main functions of each one and compare with the list given in the text:

Parliament:

Executive:      

Judiciary:       

Review the functions of the Provincial Administration – to carry out government decisions and to supervise development.
Ask:

5. Relationship between the Government and the People
Highlight the assumption made in the text that those who are elected will act on behalf of, in the interests of, those who elected them.
Put the question:

 

Note that this discussion takes the group back to the first section of the unit and leads it on to the next unit – on the management of public resources.

6. When Governance is Bad Governance

Have a final brainstorming session on what the participants think are the main constraints acting against good governance in Kenyan society. Compare the outcome with the points made in the text on corruption, nepotism and political patronage.