You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Politics » Discussions Of Governance

Free Essays - Politics Essays

'Discussions of governance' simply disguise the reality of central dominance over the machinery of government'. Discuss the validity of this claim with the use of appropriateexamples.

The discussions and debatesconcerning the concept of governance usually centre upon the factors thatdetermine whether governance is good or bad. Governance is how a state isruled, which group rules a state and who that rule benefits. As point ofreference, the following is based on this definition of governance as the actor manner of governing; the office or functioning of governing (Oxford EnglishReference Dictionary, 1996 p. 605). Governance can be based upon differentnotions or systems such as liberal democracy, socialism, communism, andnationalism that in theory leave states governed by different groups anddifferent motivations. However, the discussion outlined below will debatewhether the concept of governance is simply a disguise for the reality ofcentral dominance over the machinery of government or not.

Ideas concerning governancehave changed or evolved over the centuries, including radical and violentattempts to alter the very nature of governance itself. In the feudalsocieties of Europe there was little pretence of governance being carried out onan egalitarian or non-elitist basis, rulers controlled the central machinery ofgovernment as far as they were able to (Comfort, 1993 p. 239). Monarchsclaimed to rule by divine right with the backing of the aristocracy and thehigher clergy. Governance was all about keeping people in their social andeconomic places whilst maintaining full political control. A mixture of force,patronage, and paternalism, being frequently employed to ensure stability(Held, 1996 p.39). However, the social and economic changes that happened fromthe 16^th century (and earlier in parts of Italy) led to new ideaswith regard to the concept of governance, most closely linked with Britain andFrance. In Britain liberalism would dominate policies under a constitutionalmonarchy whose governance favoured the capitalist classes and the landowners.Governance was geared to leave the rich to generate more money with little orno interference from the state. However, British governments did start to takemore control over the machinery of government. They even increased governmentintervention to provide education, welfare, and public sanitation services.Governments justify such interventions on the grounds that they are lookingafter their people's best interests (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p.28).

A more radical form ofliberalism followed in the wake of the French Revolution that swept away themonarchy and the aristocracy. Despite the slogans of fraternity, equality, andliberty the paradoxical legacy is that France is still governed by the elitethat retained control of the central machinery of governance after the FrenchRevolution. Another variant of liberalism developed in the United States,liberalism that faced less challenges and alterations than in Britain and France(Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 29). The Americans still regard their homelandas the land of the free, yet the United States, whilst it internationallypreaches the virtues of liberal democracy, does not always show those virtuesitself. The United States may be the land of opportunity, yet it is also aland with many social and economic inequalities. America is just the bestexample of a state where governance favours the rich and powerful. TheAmerican government does not always listen to the electorate or take heed ofprotest against its policies. Perhaps the best example of this was the Bushadministration's invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Young, 2003 p. 139).

Other ideas on governanceemerged as a result of the French Revolution most notably nationalism, socialismand as a reaction conservatism (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 82). Out ofsocialism, communism would evolve. Fascism later evolved from conservatism,nationalism, and even elements of socialism. Fascism tended to stress theunity of the nation being led by a charismatic leader, whilst turning thecontrol of the machinery of government in authoritarian directions (Comfort,1993 p. 198). Communism was supposed to lead to the withering away of thestate and therefore by default for the need for government if not governance.That is not exactly the order of events in the countries that adopted communismin Central and Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China. The paradox ofcommunist regimes was that they needed stronger states rather than weaker ones,to make people equal they had to take away their freedom. Governance justchanged to run the state and the economy for the benefit of party members andgovernment officials. Control over the central machinery of governance had tobe strengthened to keep the regimes in power. China still remains the solemajor country to have retained a communist regime that maintains a tightcontrol over the state, yet has adopted capitalist measures and all butabandoned the pretence of aiming towards an equal society (Berridge, 1997 p.140). On a formal basis many of the former communist states of the formerSoviet Union plus Central and Eastern Europe made the transition to beingcapitalist liberal democracy. Ironically enough, the collapse of communismgave many Russians their first taste of life under a weak government. However,any thoughts that governance in Russia would witness a permanent slackening ofthe control of the machinery of government ended when Vladimir Putin replacedBoris Yeltsin as president. Whilst formally accepting the public form ofliberal democracy, Putin has set about the task of restoring the Kremlin'sauthority with relish (Meir, 2004 p.406).

Those people that supportliberal democracy believe that it has reduced the amount of control of themachinery of government that elected governments hold, or at a minimum levelgives the voters the chance to decide which party or parties control themachinery of government. Various factors can increase or reduce the amount ofcontrol over the central machinery of government that governments wield. Theelectoral system used in each state can have a strong influence on the amountof control government holds over the central machinery. For instance, compareBritain, which has the first past the post system that usually ensures singleparty government with Germany that usually has a coalition government due tohaving a proportional representation system. Single party governments can beless likely to compromise or follow moderate policies than coalitiongovernments; no German government for instance would have introduced the polltax or decided to assist the American invasion of Iraq (Young, 2003 p. 204).

There are also differences ingovernance between states that have a unitary or federal constitutionalstructure. Britain, until Labour brought in devolution for Scotland and Waleswas a unitary state with the government at Westminster dominating the controlof the machinery of government. Labour has also attempted to devolvegovernance to the regions, localities and various government departments orservices such as health and housing. The government however, failed to gainapproval for regional assemblies in England (Seldon & Kavanagh, 2005,p.398). Even within more established federal states such as Germany and theUnited States the amount of central dominance of the control of the machineryof government varies greatly. The United States president, especially if theirparty controls Congress, has a greater level of control than any Germanchancellor does (Held, 1996 p. 93).

Arguably, member states ofthe European Union have had their ability to control the machinery ofgovernment amended. That amendment due to European Union members has to enactEuropean Union regulations and directives. Those members' states that joinedthe single currency lost more control than members such as Britain (that didnot join) did. The European Union member states still maintain a large degreeof national self determination and the enlargement to include members fromCentral and Eastern Europe in 2004 will certainly delay the deepening of theintegration process (Seldon & Kavanagh, 2005, p.450).

In the 1980s, some of theWestern governments, particularly those of Britain and the United Statesadopted neo-liberal economic policies that were intended to reduce the centraldominance of the control of machinery of government. Ronald Reagan andMargaret Thatcher were most closely associated with this approach, neither ofthem liking what they termed as big government However, that was not the caseas higher unemployment and crime forced greater government intervention(Comfort, 1993 p. 198). Margaret Thatcher as much through the force of herpersonality as her policies did more to continue the central dominance over themachinery of government, leaders that seem more likely to compromise seem tolessen their control over the machinery of government. The effects ofThatcherism have been varied, a Conservative Party more anti- European, aLabour Party that is more right wing, and a greater desire for politicalautonomy that led to devolution in Scotland and Wales (Young, 2003, p.13).

Conversely, the governmentswhose central dominance was reduced were the governments of developingcountries, which had neo-liberal austerity measures forced on them by theInternational Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The ulterior motive for suchpolicies was to give them good governance and end dictatorships, or any signsof corruption coming from overpowering central dominance. Instead ofimprovements, these states reduced their involvement in running essentialhealth and education services. Such cuts have had dramatic effects especiallyin Africa due to the spread of AIDS and HIV, which African governments have hadlittle power or resources to prevent. Sometimes it would be better if thecentral dominance of government machinery was stronger (Brown with Ainley,2005, p. 183). The absence of a strong government can cause as many problemsas the dictates of an over mighty one. The collapse of central authority hasled to civil wars in Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia in thepast decade or so. These states also had other factors undermining theirexistence such as a lack of legitimacy or deeply ingrained nationalist andethnic tensions (Young, 2003 p. 142). Although, the American led coalitionquickly defeated the Iraqi regime, it inadvertently found out what happens whenthere is no central government, let alone a government that controls themachinery of government. There was a power void in Iraq that has allowedterrorist groups to attack coalition forces and Iraqi civilians alike. It isimpossible to build up a civil service, a police force, armed forces, plus acentral government overnight (Seldon & Kavanagh, 2005 p. 449).

Overall, it has to be agreedthat governance simply disguises the reality of central dominance of thecontrol of government machinery. Of course, the level of central control canvary from state to state or due to favourable or unfavourable circumstances. Astate's constitution, its electoral system, and the personalities of itspoliticians and leaders can directly influence how much the control ofgovernment machinery is dominated from its centre. Central governments alonedo not make up a state's governance, other elements such as professional andpolitically neutral civil services, police forces and armed forces are needed,alongside an independent judiciary. In liberal democracies, governance issupposed to be carried out for the whole of the population and not just for thebenefit of the elite or groups close to the governing party or coalition. Itcould be argued that for governance to be effective there has to be somecentral domination of the control of the machinery of government, as much for practicalreasons as opposed to ideological reasons. Central domination of the machineryof government is not entirely a bad thing providing that there is scrutiny,checks and balances plus the ability to change the government. Sometimes,governments adopt policies that make some of their general public questiontheir legitimacy. For example, the American and British governments facedopposition for their invasion of Iraq. Governments have to make decisions, ina democracy they may pay for the unpopularity of those decisions at subsequentelections, authoritarian regimes can also find that their dominance of themachinery of government is not assured or eternal.Bibliography

Berridge, (1997)International Politics - States, Power & Conflict since 1945, 3^rdedition, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead

Brown C with Ainley K (2005)Understanding International Relations 3^rd edition, Palgrave,Basingstoke

Comfort N (1993) Brewer'sPolitics, a phrase and fable dictionary, Cassell, London

Eatwell, R. & Wright, A(2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2^nd Edition, Continuum,London

Held D (1996) Models ofDemocracy, 2^nd edition, Polity Press, London

Oxford English ReferenceDictionary, (1996) Oxford University Press, Oxford

Seldon A & Kavanagh D,(2005) The Blair Effect 2001-5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Young H (2003) supping withthe Devils - Political writing from Thatcher to Blair, Guardian Books, London

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: