There is no single and exhaustive definition of “good governance,” nor is there a delimitation of its scope, that commands universal acceptance. The term is used with great flexibility; this is an advantage, but also a source of some difficulty at the operational level. Depending on the context and the overriding objective sought, good governance has been said at various times to encompass: full respect of human rights, the rule of law, effective participation, multi-actor partnerships, political pluralism, transparent and accountable processes and institutions, an efficient and effective public sector, legitimacy, access to knowledge, information and education, political empowerment of people, equity, sustainability, and attitudes and values that foster responsibility, solidarity and tolerance.
However, there is a significant degree of consensus that good governance relates to political and institutional processes and outcomes that are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of development. It has been said that good governance is the process whereby public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources and guarantee the realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption, and with due regard for the rule of law. The true test of "good" governance is the degree to which it delivers on the promise of human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The key question is: are the institutions of governance effectively guaranteeing the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food, quality education, fair justice and personal security?
The Indian Supreme Court has relied on the need to ensure good governance as a justification for bypassing the elected branches and for enhancing its own role. In certain areas it has manifested itself as a ‘shadow government’ which takes care of the issues the political branches fail to address. The low standing bar and the flexible procedure, which are the hallmarks of Public Interest Litigation, act as the fuel that keeps the engine of judicial involvement running. Although the need to pursue good governance serves as the rationale for its high profile role, the Court has never clearly defined the concept. The justices keep referring to broad generalizations and aspirations which are not easy to pin down.
Whether courts should be allowed to disregard the separation of powers to safeguard the democratic process depends on one’s approach towards this concept. When one adopts a static view, judges are obliged to stick to their traditional role whatever the circumstances, whereas a dynamic approach recognises that the proper role of the judge is determined by the circumstances prevailing at the time and it acknowledges that there are situations in which judges may take action from which they should normally refrain. Those adhering to the dynamic view will welcome decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, in which the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine which had condemned black children to attending segregated schools. The Court’s intervention was necessary to break the democratic deadlock. Instead of violating the separation of powers the Court breathed new life into it.
Role of Political Parties -
If parliamentary democracy has not functioned satisfactorily in India in recent times, it is not because of the defects in the system but due to the incompetence or inefficiency of those entrusted with the task of running it. Most of the problems in the 1990s were primarily due to the nature of party politics. All these tend to reduce the effectiveness of democratic governance. The nature of party politics in this context reflects the response of political parties to the issue and problems of people. This also reflects the nature of governance in India.
The way in which political parties perceive governance indicates their concern and response to the problems and aspirations of people. In view of this, it is pertinent to understand how political parties perceive governance. The best available source to know about political parties perception is through their manifestos. This also helps in understanding whether there is a difference between political parties, perception of governance and what they actually practice.
The role of political parties in democratic governance is significantly influenced by their electoral strength and parliamentary strength. Electoral strength and parliamentary strength determine power position of parties in parliamentary. The party or parties with majority may have more responsibility and obviously, it or they can give final shape to the policy decision. The opposition parties contribute to the policy decision by offering their advice and criticism.
The process of finalizing the policy decision is greatly influenced by the position of political parties in terms of electoral and parliamentary strength. Obviously, the process of finalizing policy decisions involves interactions among various parties. In view of this, effective formulation and implementation of policies was mainly influenced by the nature of interactions among political parties.
The concern expressed by the political parties about governance in their election manifestors represent their position on democratic governance. In view of this, we assume that manifestos of political parties constitute an important part of their documents indicating their efforts of public interest formation and manifestation in the form of policies and programmes. The other documents of parties like resolutions passed in the party meetings, speeches of the office bearers, and statements on public affairs inside and outside parliament are based on the broader commitment or promise made through the election manifestos. Therefore, election manifestos as documents are adequate to understand the perception of parties on policies, programmes and democratic governance.
