The word ‘Governance’ has the same roots as ‘Government’. However, the recent popularity of the use of ‘governance’ comes from the growing notion of looking at political control as a technical matter and of an increasing tendency to think of the government – and the governing – of a country as the management – and the managing – of a country.

We should also be aware that governance seems more at home in the context of corporations, and in line with that, the word assumes the existence of the entity to be unproblematic – be it a state or a corporation.

For countries and states that are relatively new and that are still being ‘built’, the increasing usage of ‘governance’ may be in response to the initial and over time, excessive focus on the notion of nationbuilding rather than on state building.

Governance as a notion necessarily highlights rules and regulations, technocratic mechanisms and corrective procedures. Except where security is a concern, it is of great advantage that information is free and reliable since policies have to be based on them – as are punishments.

So what constitutes Good Governance on the part of a national government?

I would deconstruct the term into the following related processes:

Each of these involves complicated and often strongly inter-linked itineraries. The focus differs from country to country and from regime to regime, and necessarily shifts over time as well.

The important point being made here is that the historical context of any given case must be considered in deciding what good governance is and is not.

Where building a state is concerned, the focus is mainly on technocratic capability and legal reliability. Building a nation, which is the more commonly adopted notion, deals more with the emotive aspects of social harmony and with matters of identity.