1. More and more the Good Governance concept constitutes a useful criteria and an operational instrument to appreciate the art of governing. As long as this approach serves the need to distinguish, during a given period, good and bad practices of one or many governments which succeeded each other in the same country, its feasibility could be considered as a useful instrument of measure in complement with other indicators often used in macro-economy, social or financial analysis. In this case, the Good Governance criteria will come up with new and powerful tools, which will facilitate the assessment of progress or regress obtained in the country. The Good Governance concept remains operational if it is implemented as a comparative instrument of performances improved in countries belonging to a homogenous, economic, social and cultural group.
2. Is it sufficient to consider Good Governance as a universal criteria able to be implemented with success any time and everywhere? The question seems relevant especially because of the intensive use of this concept as significant criteria to justify the conditions of the aid given by countries and donors institutions to poor recipient countries. These last ones have to prove that they are well governed. So, it is important to reach a minimal consensus on the content of the criteria, its applicability and its equity when it is implemented in underdeveloped countries.
3. It is a timely thought especially in the context of globalization with its visible economic achievement implemented in the Global Village where it is possible, due to different reasons, to discredit countries which have not acted in reprehensible manner and to encourage others which merit to be blamed.

ii) The content of the good governance concept

4. It seems easy to admit that the concept of Good Governance could be implemented differently depending on the economic and social context. Is it useful to open a sterile debate about it when reference is made to an obviously difference in the content of the Good Governance as implemented in the Antiquity, the Middle Age, the Contemporary History or the Present Time? Is it relevant to address the question if it is logical to give the same signification to the governance acts made in Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, Paris, Maseru, or Praia?
5. It is possible to admit that the Good Governance concept find its legitimacy and its feasibility in the historical context of the "Unique and Predominant Thought", which gives its preference to the democratic state rule on the political practices level and to the Liberalism on the economical practice level. There is currently a certain specialization between partners in development (*1). Bilateral ones pay a particular attention to political imperatives (respect of the disposals of the Constitution, elaborated on a participatory principle and adopted on a regular and democratic process; existing and functioning political multiparty system and press freedom; fair electoral system, etc…). The multilateral partners focus their appreciation on economic and financial aspects but without forgetting certain political aspects like good allocation and utilization of public resources, transparency in public market procedures, systematic fight against corruption and public resources misappropriation, the quality of participation, or state rule respect (*2). A third good governance aspect is linked to the consequent appreciation of state acts on the progress or regress of the peace culture at the national or international level. Obviously, the development must be considered in a peaceful space and the Good Governance must be used to encourage governments to enhance their capacity to create the best conditions of dialogue, solidarity and concord. In doing so, it helps to reduce situations of misunderstanding and conflicts between citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, profession or region. The Good Governance concept must be able to efficiently handle a decentralization process, an empowerment of populations and solidarity practices in neighboring countries.
6. In the "Unique and Predominant Thought" context, there is a consensus on some good governance major aspects, those who underline the state system capacity to respect the following basis criteria: i) the transparency; ii) the responsibility/accountability; iii) the freedom of individual and collective expression; iv) the freedom of justice to make it able to efficiently control the effective application of rules and laws everywhere. Unfortunately each criteria could be appreciated differently in respect of national obvious conditions of its implementation. In addition, these criteria are interactive, interdependent and often applied to the same field of analysis application.

1. The transparency related to the state acts could be considered at a national and international level. At the national level, the populations regardless of where they live in the country, ethnicity, religion, professional statute, ideological or political preferences must be able to dispose of the same quality level of access to the understanding of rules and laws. This is of the highest priority to make it sure that all citizens have the same comprehension of the national motivations, which led to the adoption of rules and laws. It also seems important that everybody should have the same expectation, anticipation, legibility and with the same rapidity regarding the expected effects of the implementation by all of these rules and laws. Thanks to the transparency quality, the government could offer to its citizens the access to equal chances to benefit from the solidarity and to contribute usefully and collectively to the common progress. Doing so, the populations will be available to participate in the national effort when they are sure that they will benefit from its growth and development effects. In this case it appears evident that the transparency is a primordial condition to meet with a participatory and mobilizing process for the implementation of common objectives. At the international level, the transparency in the public management is useful and indispensable, in developed countries as well as in underdeveloped ones. In the industrialized countries, the lack of transparency led to the institution dysfunctionning with consequent internal and external effects concerning the state capacities to mobilize with efficiency resources for the development aid and for international cooperation. They could not justify the disparities in the aid allocation between the different recipient countries. In the poor countries which depend on the international solidarity for their surviving, the deficit in the public management transparency legitimize retention, suspension or suppression measures in the aid allocation volume and procedures, with all undesirable effects on the populations with imperative needs.
2. The accountability is a criteria with an operating process directly depending on the transparency. Obviously, If this criteria is not present, there is no reason for the public management transparency arrangements to demonstrate its insufficiency and lacks. This fact must be considered regarding a good management without a productive accountability system able to impose an obligation for the state and its constituencies. Both of them must report their acts and accept consequent and codified sanctions. The public mismanagement must be corrected and victims compensated for the undesirable effects of the mismanagement. This means that the state is not infallible, its acts could be unfair, reprehensible and condemnable and give the right to victims for consequent compensations. To be useful, the accountability must function in a cultural and practical context of a normal exercise for the right of any injured citizen to interpose and to gain sanctions against unfair public acts. This could be possible only if the institutions, which are in charge of the judgement and the condemnation of the fallible state, are capable of playing such a role. The administrative judicial system has to dispose of all the human, technical and logistical means that it needs to implement efficiently its mandate. This is of the greatest importance due to the complexity and other multisectorial dimensions of the state activities, which intervene in many fields like political, administrative, or financial ones.
3. The individual and collective freedom of expression constitutes a powerful instrument to assess Good Governance. It refers to the statutes of the press, information and communication organizations. The individual and collective freedom of expression is indispensable to meet with a transparency and accountability situation. As stated before, the public management acts directly or indirectly, giving positive or negative effects on populations. The appreciation of these acts depends on the quality of transparency which feed reactions freely expressed by populations. These populations benefit or suffer from these acts taken on behalf of the accountability rules and practices.
4. The freedom of justice. There is no transparency, no accountability and no freedom of individual and collective expression without an effective freedom of a qualified justice independent of all contingencies, able to judge and sanction all punishable public acts. For political offence, the justice needs to be able to check the conformity of any public act with the Constitutional law and normally it is the mandate of the Constitutional Court. If the deficit is an electoral one, reference has to be made to the Electoral Code and in this case it is the mission of an independent accepted mechanism to appreciate the regularity of the case and to propose the necessary adaptations and corrections. If it is an administrative act to be assessed, an Administrative Court should be in charge with such a situation. In general, the judicial system has to respond to any relevant interrogation on the regularity of acts implemented in the army, police and in all central and decentralized administrations, even in judicial administration itself. Concerning financial irregularities, transparent and operational rules and laws must serve as reference for appreciation. Adequate competencies must been gathered in relevant structures to efficiently assess, follow up and if necessary punish planners of operations led by corruption, mismanagement, fraud and other condemnable practices. In any case, the administrative and judicial system has to dispose of competencies to control and stop any prejudice acts made by officials at the central and decentralized levels, with internal inspection structures or independent audits. Only in the case of autonomous justice able to efficiently handle all public management problems and if necessary give all citizens their right when they face the state organizations, that we can consider that there exists a real freedom of justice.

1. The debate should be based on the choice pertinence of one of these four Good Governance criteria. It is true that there are a lot of definitions of the Good Governance and the following are two of them :

• The UNDP recalls in its Annual Human Development Reports being published since 1990 that there cannot be development without Good Governance. However, the Human Development itself is based on five components: accountability, cooperation, equity, sustainability, and security. The Good Governance concept itself depends on nine criteria which are: the participation, the priority to laws and rules, the transparency, the adjustment capacity, the orientation for the consensus, the equity, the efficiency, the accountability, and the strategic vision (*3).
• The Second Tokyo International Conference for African Development (TICAD) adopted on October 21, 1998 a Strategic Framework for the African Development towards the next Century. In this framework, the Good Governance is addressed as the required base for the development as well as for peace. The Good Governance concept is considered by six points: i) the reinforcement of the constitutional and democratic legitimacy in accordance with the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers; ii) the reinforcement of Good Governance and democratic essential institutions; iii) the promotion of the Human Rights and the state rule ; iv) the consolidation of accountability, transparency and public management efficiency functions; v) the promotion of tolerant culture and a larger implementation of women and civil society representative as Decision Makers ; vi) finally, the promotion of social justice as result of an equitable development benefiting to all citizens, regardless of social, tribal, ethnic or professional groups they belong(*4).

1. The Good Governance feasibility faces two types of interrogations: to which objective context and for which aim is the practice of the Good Governance related?

• Objective context of the practice of the Good Governance

1. The objective assessment of the State acts transparency quality cannot ignore the development level of the assessed country. In general, the Developed Countries have a hundred per cent literacy rate. It means that their citizens basically mastered the writing, reading and accounting functions. Their competencies regarding these functions give them the capacity to efficiently handle the good comprehension of laws and rules and to dispose with means to defend their rights and interest.
2. In the Developed Countries the press and electronic media reach all citizens widely and in practiced languages. This is done always and everywhere, regardless of where they live or work, even on their holidays resorts. Laws and rules which concern citizens' rights and duties are well sprayed, vulgarized and explained by adapted sensitizing missions with an easy and open access to everybody, everywhere. In Developed Countries, efforts are undertaken by the States to make it sure that efforts made to give more transparency to their acts in respect of their citizens are as visible, understandable and readable as possible by the national and the international populations. In magazines, news papers, radio broadcasting and television shows, everything is made to demonstrate that Developed Countries' practices are and must be considered as the best reference to be followed by underdeveloped countries. Half a dozen of rich countries dispose of the quasi monopoly of the communication infrastructures and equipment and are in position to show to the world what are the references of the Good Governance concept.
3. On the contrary, in many Underdeveloped Countries the adult literacy rate is lower that fifty per cent with a great difference between rural and urban, males and females, rich and poor populations. In these countries, most of citizens have no access to national communication means. The only possibility they have is to be informed on national situation through the international media. Laws and rules which organize the national life are seldom available both in rural and urban areas. For a traditional farmer who lives in the rural area the state act is as extraordinary as a divine act. States in Underdeveloped Countries have no resources and means to build and to spray at the national and international level their own image. When they suffer from a bad image sprayed by international media they do not have the capacity to protest and to correct the deformed situation. When they could do it (which is often with delay), the negative effects of the bad image are already absorbed and it is very difficult to correct the damage.
4. Finally, in general, in the Underdeveloped Countries, civil, military, administrative or financial justice face the same difficulties linked to the lack of human, material and logistical resources. The same insufficiency of means is present in other so called sovereignty sectors as diplomatic, security or defense ones. In the poor countries, the justice is venal sometimes by habit, normal practice, sometimes by necessity for corrupters and corrupted survival. The justice is aleatory because of objective conditions of its functioning and due to the social and economic environmental context. The justice is complex, heavy and opaque because it is plural and has to find adequate solutions to irreconcilable situations (application of different justice in antagonistic situations with reference to modern, traditional, religious and ethnic relevant practices).
5. In such underdeveloped situations, transparency, accountability, freedom of individual and collective expression, freedom of justice have the only significant given by objective conditions of their functioning institutions. From time to time, because of the lack of success of economic reform plans and programmes proposed or imposed by the partners in development, needs of institutional reforms are taken into account. But systematically, other priorities and preoccupations came up to change these priorities and to call for the promotion of new imperatives of reducing state means and capacities on behalf of accelerated privatization actions. Doing so, the vicious circle grows and policy makers loose their marks.

• Good Governance practices but for which goals?

1. Is it sufficient to link a Good Governance practice concerning the State implemented acts in respect of a high level of transparency, accountability, freedom of individual and collective expression and freedom of justice with the efficiency of the State management capacity? Even if it is given to the democratic representation and to the justice structures all rights and all means to implement their missions in the best manner.
2. The Good Governance as defined related to its four principal basis is not an end to itself, "une fin en soi". Is it a modern concept created by the United Nations Organization which product so many concepts as if doing so it tries to destabilize Governments and populations who have not the sufficient time to understand and to have the ownership on them? These multiple concepts which fellow each other with great rapidity are always so complicated, using uneasy procedures and formats. (For example the replacement of the development projects by the programme approach; the cycle of upstream/downstream; the succession of prospective - National Long Term Prospective Studies NLTPS -, Strategic planning -five years plans -, Macro-economic management - Rolling three years programmes of stabilization and adjustment; National Capacity Assessment Programme - NaTCAP or Empowerment at the grassroots level; quasi annual successive debt arrangements; etc…). Is the Good Governance an instrument to get a better type of development ? In this case which type of development regarding the great number of references, or is the Good Governance an instrument to correct some development difficulties like mismanagement, abuse or corruption?
3. Who is in charge of controlling the pertinence of the assessed Good Governance? Are they the National Institutions in a political system where there is an effective functioning separation between executive, legislative and judicial powers, in a democratic and republican context? Which role is taken by the civil society as the relevant factor of follow up, assessment and denunciation of any dysfunctioning of the system? Are there partners in development who have the right to assess the nature and the relevance of Good Governance implemented in supported countries which are in an imperative need of aid? How to deal with situations of assessment error or contesting? What are the effects of the aid stopping due to the so-called governmental Bad Governance on the populations in need? Who is in charge to assess the Bad Governance in Developed Countries?
4. Even if the debate is situated in the case of an acceptable consensus on the relevance of the Good Governance as an instrument facilitating the efficient measure of development, this instrument remains with a difficult application, regarding its four principal basis (transparency, accountability, freedom of expression and freedom of justice). The Good Governance is a multidimensional concept and its four principal basis respond to a technical approach of management. This approach is useful in respect to economic and financial aspects of the "Unique and Predominant Thought". The Good Governance as defined before is an excellent tool to check if public acts are in accordance with the need of the private sector promotion, market rules and free competition, productivity and competitiveness. But, even if the Good Governance is reduced to its technical approach of management, the tool is not an easy and practical one, because it is the result of the combination of other criteria, which serve as its basis. These criteria themselves depend on other constituencies with qualitative and quantitative elements of appreciation. In conclusion, it seems difficult to make reference to a universal Good Governance mechanism which can assess every time and anywhere the deficit in the public management. Complementary research must be undertaken to promote an operation approach as in the case of the UNDP Sustainable Development Index to make the Good Governance useful to measure the lack and insufficiency in public management (6).
5. In addition, the Good Governance technical approach of public management suppose the fundamentals of the Liberal State shared and accepted while the remaining real differences in which relevant ideological and political criteria have to be used to assess the adequate level right of democratic state. This level depends on a minimum capacity and competency of the social society representatives to enhance the practices of democratic control and to identify and correct any deviation and deficit with regards to the safeguard of human rights and the respect of democratic principles.
6. Then, how do we can deal with a Good Governance based on a public technical management approach which ignores ethic aspects, especially the poverty and inequity alleviation (*7), in a performing social and economical context but with insufficiencies in others fields?
7. So, The Good Governance is more than a simple instrument to assess and measure public economical and financial performance practices. It should be helpful to promote consensual appreciation in respect with explicit or implicit political, ideological and ethic objectives.

ii) Plea for a flexible implementation of the good governance concept in the African context

 

8. To find a solution to the specific African situation without rejecting the triumphal "Unique and Global Thought" consequent efforts are urgently needed to adapt criteria of the Good Governance to the respective development level reached by different countries in general and by African ones in particular. It seems possible to give to Africa, during a limited time a special statute, which permit it to benefit from derogation to a universal application of the Good Governance. This special statute will end as soon as the Continent will be considered strong enough to compete in equity with developed countries. In the interval a special mechanism must be promoted to convene with normative objectives to be reached in an adequate horizon (ten, twenty or thirty years, depending on means mobilized to support efforts for the coming up with developed countries). The principal challenge is to promote a mechanism able to assess and encourage progress made progressively by countries where the public mismanagement is related to the objective economic and social conditions.

*7… See the Gustave Speth -UNDP Administrator's speech -, at the National Press Club - Washington DC, on October 14, 1998.