Governance until now may have been primarily defined as the business of boards of directors, commission members, trustees, call them what you may! Governance in popular (or, should I say, populist) literature has also been erroneously equated with government.
However, lately, most notably after the latest general election, locally, this term has been thrown at the electorate, exciting the few (I must have been one of them!) that, while not being hopeful public servants, we are/were still interested in throwing our weight (made up of expertise and proficiency) to the better use of the state - but retaining a degree of intellectual liberty, autonomy and emancipation. Well, to say the truth, I am still loitering for somebody "to pick me up" and make my little voice heard. "Anybody out there?" "I'm here to give and not to take" Wow, this almost sounds foul and discourteous. "This little man", some whispers are heard saying, "is interested in bettering his price tag". Once again you are wrong! Not that I don't understand that there aren't masses of bedbugs roaming ministerial quarters!
The broad definition of politics that I go by, lays on all of us, the responsibility to share our knack and know-how for the benefit of the community and not just for the advantage of the tax-man. That is why this recent electoral promise (or, might I say, hubbub) on governance got me all animated and energised.
Back to understanding this catchword not yet turned cliché. This term seems to suggest an appreciation of an increasingly convoluted state-community relationship in which social operators, community leaders and social activists are prominent in policy-making and development while the state's primary role focuses on policy coordination (moving away from policy-control).
This raises important questions (and a few eyebrows) about the challenge of governance to state power and related questions of self-governing.
Governance, in this day and age, is required as it gives greater attention to the links between public administration and the public interest - until some time ago, between the two, there seems to have been a glitch. With the expeditious changes that are affecting and transforming our communities, together with the complexity of community, maximising engagement of the citizens is decisive.
A starting point for understanding what governance entails is to make clear what it does not represent. What governance stands for may be litigious. Governance is not simply a new phrase for describing what governments do, as we seem to be made to think and believe. In broad terms, governance describes the increased participation of non-governmental actors in public and administrative policy-making and implementation.
Governance is an important concept; this is an accepted fact by all. During the past 20 years we have witnessed strong political pressures to reduce the government's reach and shift responsibilities for public policy rendition to non-governmental entities. At a time when devolution and privatisation have made the government and non-profit organisations ever more interdependent, we must question the adequacy of this distinction. In reality, the boundaries between non-profit and public governance are increasingly fluid and overlapping and our understanding has to be informed to sanction such a relationship. The strength of any nation is being challenged by a number of factors. The increased volatility has deprived the state of much of its traditional capacity to govern our community - engaging the plebs is of importance to ensure that change lies in the grassroots.
The central issue for governance is how voluntary-membership networks can be enticed to create enough social power and motivation to bring about publicly-significant results for the local citizenry and to solve problems and mitigate the necessary transformations.
The community depends on good governance, namely; broad debate, decision-making opportunities, management of community resources, adequate use of public space, all blended within a discourse of civil rights, liberties and responsibilities. To be completely even-handed in our denigration, we have experienced some examples of popular engagement in public administration.
With all fairness, inspiration comes namely from the environmental lobby (namely the St John's Co-Cathedral and Bahrija episode remind us of this command) and maybe the occasional local governments that are trying to go beyond the political partisan agenda. But this is not enough! Change comes if the state realises that we are all responsible for managing the country and patronising statements that lead towards the "I hear what you say but I do what's best for you" are, as far as I'm concerned, objectionable, offensive and should lead towards a chorus of disapproval. The democracy we are talking about is a state initiated on active engagement, people control and answerability.
Finally, in present-day use, governance refers to a new process of ascendancy and a changed condition of ordered rule. I view governance as fundamentally entailing inter-dependence.
Governance is broader than government. Changing the boundaries of the state entails that public, private and voluntary functions and positioning became momentarily fluid and, at times, possibly opaque until we get used to a new way of doing things. The way I see it, governance is effectively based on two principles: firstly "continuity" and secondly, "negotiated shared resolve". I don't see much of this in sight as yet!
Dr Azzopardi is lecturer at the University of Malta's Department of Youth and Community Studies.