The purpose of this brief is to offer a concise introduction to the core elements of the concept of governance legitimacy – the right and acceptance of the government as an authority. It is a result of the Think To DO Institute’s ongoing research on the topic. The report is designed for those who are new to the idea, and it addresses what is it and why governance legitimacy is important.
Governance legitimacy is the right and the acceptance of the government as an authority. This legitimacy derives from the effect of the electoral system and depends on whether the government is enforcing the laws of the land in the interest of the public at large.
Throughout history the term governance has been associated exclusively to the role of the state ignoring other social factors. Most recent theories, however, offer a very different view of this term. Most definitions stress the relationships between the three actors of governance – state, market and civil society – as necessary requisite to the act of governance. The understanding is that governance is the way these actors organize themselves and make decisions according to a set of formal and informal rules that together form institutions.
The term “governance legitimacy” is recognized as a set of concepts that better describe the best practices of governing. Governance legitimacy determines in part how a state operates. The less legitimacy, the more efforts any government must invest in maintaining any position taken. By means of collaboration as never before, legitimate governance elevates governments to higher levels of trust, respect, openness, and effectiveness.
The actors
Earlier definitions of governance linked this term exclusively to the action of government. Today definitions are wider and cover non-state actors as mentioned before. In the words of governance scholar R. A. W. Rhodes (1997), “No single actor, public or private, has the sufficient knowledge to dominate ultimately a governing model.” Governance is the result of a social-political-administrative sharing process where state, market and civil society have their own role. The state does not have any more a central role.
Governance and institutions
Governance is the process of decision-making which conducts public life in a society and guarantees respect of citizens’ human rights, equality in resource distribution and safety. Governance is in charge of the application of the rules of the game which will determine the absence or not of (or the degree of) political legitimacy in a country and the population’s quality of life.
So far governance has been described as the way state, market and civil society interact according to a set of norms and rules known as institutions. These institutions are in charge of providing the instruments which make possible such interaction. Institutions are created as a result of the necessity of improving the coordination among the different members of a society. This prevents conflicts of interests and supporting the need to cooperate. A society without, or which has deficient or ineffective institutions or poor enforcement of the rules of the game shows tendencies in the direction of an anarchist society where lack of organization may lead to chaos.
The rules are in the form of formal norms (those based on written constitutions, laws, formal contracts, etc.) and informal norms (based on moral rules, unwritten societal codes of conduct, etc). The scope of work of institutions is very wide and covers all the economic and social aspects related to the individual such as personal security, property rights, resource distribution, level of freedom, education, etc.
Governance legitimacy is important for resilience
Governance legitimacy best practices set forth a set of guidelines, ethics, or ideas that represent the most prudent and efficient course of actions in a given situation.
Legitimacy is important for all governments because it sustains political stability, provides the reasonableness of a government, or provides reason for the government to exist. Legitimacy manifest itself as good governance and leadership, popular participation, economic development, the impact of government’s decisions, and their performance accountability.
Governance legitimacy is earned. The triad actors in society at its core are the elements of the relationship between the private sector as stakeholder, public confidence and political commitment in a society. The private sector is a pillar the economy. Governance legitimacy is about the degree to which citizens feel government is connected or disconnected to their needs. This legitimacy determines the citizens’ acceptance of government’s moral (as opposed to its formal) authority to govern. All governments need a degree of legitimacy to govern effectively and to determine, in part, how a state operates. Legitimacy is important for all governments because it sustains political stability.
The enactment of laws and responsible budgeting may also help legitimize a government’s governance. The acceptance of that system by the public, in great part, determines how the public perceives the legitimacy given to the government.
As a young small island nation, Curaçao is becoming more aware of the importance of governance legitimacy. In doing so, the community will have to play an active role to achieve this goal.
The actors must assume their responsibility and demand and help establish the institutions needed, the market needed, and the social cohesion and stakeholder participation needed for governance legitimacy.
The collaboration and shared vision of the triad of society builds governance legitimacy. Because of the trust, respect and transparency which governance legitimacy creates, it enables the agreement and existence of abundance mindset, a master plan with shared vision and purpose, the formation of the people, and the capabilities for execution. This is the way to public confidence, stakeholder engagement and political commitment.
Bonnie Benesh
Curaçao
Dear Editor,
This topic is for people to examine who they are and what they stand for.
Oftentimes you hear people say they want real talk. But when you bring the real talk to them most people seem to run from reality. Any common-sense person knows the world’s greatest challenge is not climate change which I do not believe in.
The greatest challenge is family and social issues along with values. The reality in the world today is that people practice deception. People do not want morality; what they want is tolerance.
Suddenly what was right and wrong from beginning to end does not appear true anymore. We only have 2 genders in this world, that is a man and a woman. There is no third gender (X?). What is normal and righteous is man is made for a woman. Not man and man or woman and woman or worst yet human and animal. Your first objective should be to do what is right, not to please society or government. Tolerating evil or immorality makes you just as wrong in the sight of God.
Let us be honest with ourselves and I am surely not perfect but I accept reality and truth. A woman living with a man not married is also an alternative lifestyle which is the couple’s choice but let us be honest with ourselves, the responsibility and value are lower because they refuse to value their worth. Do not be foolish to expect that lifestyle will bring a good outcome and be successful; it can be, but highly unlikely not.
A family without a father or mother together is difficult to blossom, because the foundation is weak. People making children and not willing to be responsible and be willing to sacrifice themselves for children should not have any.
When you look in the mirror what do you see? Who are you and what do you stand for? Are you for real or are you deceive? What you stand for and believe in, are you living it in reality?
It is nowhere in the bible it says it takes a village to raise a child; that is man-made theory. God says it takes a father and a mother as living an example to their children to foster a good upbringing.
Education is good, it can bring money, comfort and pleasure, but it does not guarantee happiness. The most important value is love. Love is not a feeling. The feeling comes and goes. Love is a commitment, love is obedience to the vows you make. Love does not cheat, love sacrifices. Love is honest and does not compromise on values. Love is forgiveness but it does not tolerate wrongdoing. Remember, forgiveness demands change in conduct.
We have many people living together for security and for things, but not for love. Love has to be tested, it is just like faith. Faith in God must be tested to prove itself. Love is proving when things go bad, not when things are good. Love is not ego or “me first”, it should be together.
Happiness is when a man or woman finds good opposite sex for a wife or husband who loves you for real. It is better to be alone than to live with a partner that you don’t love or they do not love you.
The conclusion is, Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all? Choices have consequences, choose wisely. God is love and He does not tolerate sin.
The Patriot Miguel Arrindell
Dear Editor,
The St. Maarten Housing Development Foundation (SMHDF) encourages public debate and comment about social housing and affordable housing on St. Maarten, especially after two sessions of Parliament when our foundation went to pains to open itself to government and the people of St. Maarten for scrutiny. In the process the SMHDF responded to more than 110 questions with an additional session to clarify some of the answers provided to the questions from various members of Parliament regarding the work of our Foundation and related matters. It is therefore most surprising and rather unfortunate to read quite some misrepresentations and lack of understanding of the information provided by an opinion writer, Mr. Joseph Harvey in The Daily Herald edition of Thursday, February 25, 2020.
Had Mr. Harvey listened carefully to all that we had to say without bias and misrepresentation he would have heard that an SMHDF $45 million request to the Trust Fund is from monies set aside by the Dutch Government to provide better housing conditions for St. Maarteners first and foremost. Not only housing repairs, as Mr. Harvey has stated in his opinion piece, but also for the building of 1,000 new much-needed homes, temporary homes to enable repairs and also for various social reforms that will greatly improve the housing lot of the island.
Despite the huge number of motivating documents, financial reports, statistical information, illustrations and other written evidence to support our detailed presentation to parliament, Mr. Harvey has chosen to malign the good name of our foundation by hinting at fraudulent activity, claiming that our foundation is involved in deception and providing of misinformation and even suggests that we should be a target for the Prosecutor’s Office. The good gentleman also purports to know better than the foundation’s own team of financial professionals, how to make and present our financial statements in the shape and manner that he believes to be the most correct. We do not question the audacity of Mr. Harvey in this regard, but do question most strongly his agenda and purpose for such one-sided and incorrect statements.
Mr. Harvey seems to want to continue to perpetuate the misguided assumption that the SMHDF is a part of government, and the headline of the opinion piece “Public enterprise mismanaged!” is totally wrong. First of all, the SMHDF is a private organization carrying out the work that government is supposed to carry out and in no way can be described as a public entity. As for the mismanagement, that is the opinion of Mr. Harvey, which he is fully entitled to.
We stated it during parliament and we will state it again to Mr. Harvey and to anyone who wants to take the time to be objective and listen to the facts as presented before making unfounded judgements – the SMHDF is an open book. We provide our independently audited financial statements each year to the relevant authorities from whom Mr. Harvey can obtain all the information he wants and/or says we are not providing for his own scrutiny. And should Mr. Harvey want a personal explanation of the line items in the very statements he has scrutinized we will also be happy to put our financial team at his disposal to further explain anything he does not understand. Such is our confidence in the information we have provided publicly and such is our resolve to ensure the very transparency that Mr. Harvey claims to want.
It is our contention that the writer of this opinion piece will not take us up on our offer to provide him with the insight he is requesting since his sole aim is to intimidate or cast doubt on the important work the foundation continues to do in the interest of social housing and affordable housing on St. Maarten.
The SMHDF has previously sat back and allowed individuals such as the opinion writer to misstate the truth without response, believing that our work will speak for itself. Clearly this has not worked and calls for like response whenever the record needs to be set straight, as is clearly the case here.
Thank you
Helen G. Salomons – General Director SMHDF
Telston A. Bell – Director SMHDF
Dear Editor,
On March 2, 2020, the electorate of Guyana will head to the polls to cast their votes in what has been dubbed the “election of all elections”. Guyana, a country almost the size of Great Britain, is a small state with a population of approximately 780,000 people who are disproportionately divided amongst six ethnic groups.
“The land of many waters” as it is affectionately referred to by its citizens, both on the mainland and in the diaspora, is poised to undergo a transformation unprecedented in the country’s short post-independent history. The enthusiasm and excitement surrounding this impending change in Guyana’s fortunes are due largely in part to the country’s massive discovery of oil in recent times. According to some analysts, the unearthing of huge reserves of “black gold” has positioned Guyana to become the fastest growing economy in the world. And now that the production phase has commenced the country seems to be well on its way to becoming the leading economy globally in terms of growth.
Recently I was asked by an acquaintance of mine who I think is likely to win the March 2 general elections. I replied somewhat jokingly that, “Whoever secures the most votes will be declared the winner and that group will form the next government as mandated by the constitution.”
Whichever outfit wins the contest on March 02 will undoubtedly be the initiators of the country’s much anticipated transformation. They will be the group with the authority and power to control and manage the affairs of the country going forward . The suitability of this group to execute the responsibilities of government will be determined and decided by the express wish of the electorate in the coming days, and this is the norm in any functioning democracy, the people decide for varying reasons who they are desirous of governing them.
Historically though and in Guyana’s case voting has been and continues to be conspicuously racially polarised with the majority of eligible voters (most of whom are from the two most populous ethnic groups, namely Indo and Afro Guyanese) throwing their support behind the party that they perceive to represent their interest and most importantly is largely of the same ethnic background as theirs. Voting is conducted mainly along ethnic lines with the majority of Indo Guyanese supporting the opposition PPP and likewise the greater number of Afro Guyanese backing the PNC/R, the largest party of the ruling APNU coalition.
This doesn’t necessarily imply that either or both of these ethnic groups are voting in a racially discriminatory fashion or are displaying racist attitudes. This pattern could very well be interpreted as an individual’s electoral preference. What perpetuates this loyalty continues to be the subject of countless social science research, works of fiction and poetry.
The political base and grass-root support for the two major political parties has not changed noticeably over the previous decades. While the demography of Guyana’s population has changed over the last two decades brought on by the forces of emigration, deaths, births, education, etcetera, this nevertheless has not altered the trend of voting significantly. Voter indoctrination allegedly still seems to be a major influence in determining one’s support for either of the two major parties. However, this apparent sorry state of affairs should not be construed as an indictment of the electorate, as one that lacks cognitive skills and abilities to critically examine issues in order to make rational choices. Guyana has one of the highest literacy levels in that part of the hemisphere and can boast of having a fairly educated workforce, this undeniably will instantly invalidate any negative perception arising from the above.
However, it is my considered view that what seems to account for this unquestioning loyalty for either of the two major political parties is an unfailing and conscious choice to discard the use of reason and merit as a quality of judgement in making decisions during election time. The underutilisation of the first, a mental resource, and a refusal to employ the second are somewhat overpowered by other forces which provide a greater sense of security and calm in the midst of a lot of tension which is evident leading up to elections. This is understandably so in the context of Guyana as years of negative and self-serving conditioning of its citizens on race relations has helped to produce a political climate filled with distrust, fear and insecurities. Trusting the “otherness” of others is one of the challenges facing Guyana in its post-colonial historical experience.
So, a large percentage of voters cloaked in skepticism, worry and uncertainty will take to the polls on March 2 casting their votes as they usually do for whoever they judge will assuage those lingering feelings. And any comparative analysis done post-March 2 between the 2015 and 2020 elections isn’t likely to show huge variances in terms of the votes secured by the two major parties from the two most populous ethnic groups, as both parties are likely to retain their core supporters and political base. Party loyalists from the two big parties account for the lion’s share of Guyana’s electorate and are predictable voters. However, it’s the other categories of voters considered the “swingers” that are likely to upset the balance of power giving either of the two majors the critical support necessary to gain the parliamentary majority.
The above-noted categories of voters are the rational, disgruntled voters and the Amerindian or indigenous voters. The former were once traditional supporters of the PPP and PNC/R but broke ranks and are now either independent or are in support of the AFC – a member of the ruling coalition and a party whose leadership constitutes members who were once officials and affiliates of both the PPP and PNC/R.
The AFC appeals to the splinters or breakaways from the two major parties and has seen consistent results at the last two polls providing the critical seats that were needed for the coalition to enjoy a parliamentary majority in the last elections. There have been some disagreements between the rank and file of the AFC in recent times resulting from several internal matters, most notably the falling-out with one of its members who voted with the opposition setting in motion the successful passing of a no-confidence motion against the present government. Whether the AFC will be able to repeat its 2015 elections performance at the upcoming polls in light of this remains to be seen.
The remainder of voters from the first category noted above have not sworn allegiance to the AFC or any other party and are the independent rational voters who are guided by critical thinking and rational thought, they weigh the personal costs and benefits of their intended choice before making a decision. They look at the pros and cons, aligning their interests with that of the policies of the party of their choosing. They will lend their support in and as far as the benefits of their alignment exceed that of its costs.
Most of the rational, informed debates and nonpartisan discussions on the issues pressing Guyana are penned and verbalised by this group. They will support the group they are confident will manage the resources of the country in a reasonable manner. They have been analysing and assessing potential candidates over a period of time on a wide range of issues, in the process forming informed opinions on their suitability.
The Indigenous or Amerindian voters have matters and concerns that are unique to the preservation of their identity, culture and their sense of entitlement for being the first settlers of Guyana. They are a part of the national debate and an entire ministry has been customised to attend to their affairs, they are a force to be reckoned with. The extent to which the incumbent government or its predecessor has been able to resolve and progress on matters dear to them will be reflected by the level of support each receives on election day.
Come March 2, 2020, the victors will have become victorious by a slim margin. Nevertheless, they will form the next government tasked with sensibly managing in particular the proceeds from Guyana’s new-found resource. They ought to be held accountable and should continue to enjoy the support of the nation as long as they are transparent in their administration of the affairs of that beautiful country.
Orlando Patterson
Dear Editor,
My wife and I have visited St. Maarten to vacation (at least once each year) for more than 23 years. We love the island and even visited in December 2017 to show our support and make a small contribution to the island's post-hurricane recovery. Our last visits were in December 2019 and again earlier this month, February 2020.
We have seen reasonably good recovery to restaurants and other facilities important to tourists on both the Dutch and French sides, but continue to be disappointed by the slow rebuilding of the island's most critical infrastructure, the airport.
Realizing that this rebuilding is a major and costly undertaking, it has now been nearly 2½ years since [Hurricane – Ed.] Irma, and only a small portion of the airport is open for the benefit of tourists, the island's lifeblood. In fact, as we were leaving 2 weeks ago, my wife and I heard a comment in the crowded departure area that another couple would not return because of the airport hassle, busing from/to the aircraft, etc.
We're not sure whether it is Dutch or French governments, insurance companies, or who is slowing this rebuilding, but for every week the airport is not back to full operation the island can expect to lose tourist business to other Caribbean islands.
Liz and Michael Petko
Charlotte, North Carolina
