Introduction:
In response to the call from the Ministry of National Planning and Human Resources for interested Solomon Islanders to prepare papers on various issues affecting our nation, I have taken the liberty to respond to this call as a Solomon Islander whose future lies within a nation torn apart. In this paper, I will concentrate on the issue of good governance.
I have long harboured the feeling that the Solomon Islands development experience was in danger of getting throttled because too many fundamental issues of political economy were simply not getting debated and addressed with sufficient intellectual rigour. Issues, such as the very essence of democracy, the nature and politics of different social forces, and the nature and impact of external factors on the practice of economic reform.
The issue of governance deserves to be debated especially rigorously (or scientifically, if you like) because it relates to the institutions of political power and raises the whole matter of the political conditions for environmentally sustainable economic development.

Background:
Solomon Islands, in the pre-colonial period, was no heaven. But it was no hell either - not any more than other parts of the world. In terms of governance, Solomon Islands was probably more democratic than most other parts of the world.
Solomon Islands has had a long tradition of democracy based on the accountability of the rulers to the ruled. For sure there were lapses and weaknesses, and for sure there were differences between, for instance, segmentary or acephalous societies and societies with state-like structures. Nonetheless, the rulers were accountable to their people, to their ancestors, and to a regime of democratic principles (rule of law, trial by tribal chiefs, traditional compensation for breaking customs, taboo against killing, and a sense of community responsibility for the welfare of the vulnerable sections of society) with checks and balances. That long and tested traditional system was subverted during the colonial period and, within a short time-span of a generation, and in the face of massive resistance from the Solomon Island people (Ma'asina Rule Movement, Moro Movement etc) an authoritarian, external, unaccountable and undemocratic tradition was imposed. Anyone who tries to contradict this historical fact has to rewrite history.
What took the place of democratic governance was effective governance in the name of order and growth. But for whose order and whose growth? Colonial governance was for the benefit of the rulers, not for the benefit of the ruled. The Solomon Islands societies were ruptured, their cultural, religious, and social institutions torn apart. Words like 'rupture' and 'torn apart' may sound emotive. But use softer verbs, if you like, the reality would not change. The nerve-racking realities of Isatabu Freedom Fighters and the Malaita Eagle Force today have to do, in no small measure, to the fragmentation of those societies during the colonial period.

Solomon Island workers, businessmen, intellectuals and grassroots have been silently fighting against the undemocratic practice for so long. They have suffered in vain due to irresponsible practices of bureaucrats. The struggle of Guadalcanal people for land and freedom, for example, was a democratic struggle. And so was the struggle in Pavuvu for the cease of logging activities. Arraigned behind all these instances of undemocratic rule were the might of the dollar and the power of the bad governance.
So there is nothing new about the cry for 'democratic governance' in Solomon Islands. It has been the cry of Solomon Islanders ever since their indigenous systems of governance were subverted by colonial power.

Post Colonial Governance:
Colonial governance was for colonial benefit and post-colonial governance should be for the benefit of all Solomon Islanders. It is the question of responsibility that raises problems and debates. The facts are that the common people of Solomon Islands have not benefited from post-independence governance. If anything, they are materially and physically worse off than before. What is in dispute is the issue of responsibility. Who has made such a mess of Solomon Islands? The corrupt leaders, say the people, leaders who are self-serving and power hungry. Lazy people, say the leaders, people who just wait for the government to give them jobs and to feed them. Bad governments, says the World Bank and the transnationals, governments that have not followed correct fiscal, monetary, pricing and trade policies, and governments that are not accountable to their population. The market, say the left intellectuals (Solomon Islanders and non-Solomon Islanders), the invisible forces of which work in favour of those who own capital and who exercise state power.
In view of our democratic system in Solomon Islands, governance was mainly a call for democratic elections and was justified as a legitimate area of intervention in donor-recipient country relations on the basis that is was the best way to secure the social consensus and acceptability necessary for the successful implementations and sustainability of economic reform programmes. Political reform anchored in constitutional arrangements and the rule of law would offer a predictable environment in which private sector activity would thrive, thereby enhancing growth.
In recent times, and at the level of debate and policy formulation, good governance has come to raise a number of specific issues going beyond the mere conduct of democratic elections. They include:
- a redefinition of the role of both the national and provincial government and the emerging debate of statehood
- the assurance of accountability of government and greater transparency in the entire governmental process and formation of the civil society and other non-governmental organizations.
- law and order problem.
Improved governance thus requires not a mechanical reduction of the state to some pre-conceived extent but a redefinition of its role in ways that respond to the requirements of sound economic management. Indeed the experience of many reforming Pacific countries suggests that the market economy required for its success, the assumptions by the state of many new "tasks" especially in the areas of public expenditure management, monetary policy and foreign exchange operations, the of banking and non-bank financial institutions as well as the virgining capital markets, that we find our country today.
Accountability, Transparency & Effective Governance
An important area of governance which should be receiving a new focus and which straddles both the economic and the political is the area of accountability and transparency in government. Good governance in the sense of an accountable and humane government is indeed an important element of it, and nobody should discount it's significance.
The call for accountability and transparency is thus rooted almost exclusively in concern about corruptions in Solomon Islands. Transparency and accountability lie at the very core of good governance and open economic strategies entailing the liberalisation of the exchange trade and payments system, provide an important foundation for good governance by severely limiting the space for political and administrative discretion in the allocation of resources.
Another side to good governance is that of effective governance. These two sides to 'good governance' are not necessarily mutually compatible. One side relates to the manner in which those who govern are accountable to those on whose behalf they purport to govern. The second side has to do with its effectiveness. The question of effectiveness brings into the discussion many other aspects of governance that are outside the issue of democracy and accountability. There is, to start with one such aspect, the issue of maintaining law and order of all forms within the Solomon Islands government administration. In certain circumstances, in situations of national catastrophe such as the recent crisis, the demands of law and order could take priority over those of accountability.
One of the aspects of effectiveness, which needs to be mentioned, but not discuss, is the welfare aspect of effective governance. How effectively does a government look after the welfare of its population? For example, the United States of America is increasingly becoming a case of 'bad governance' from a welfare point of view, even many would say from a representative point of view. Nearly sixty percent of Americans do not even bother to exercise their vote for they know that it changes nothing for them.
Hence, accountability and effectiveness are two different matters. They may be compatible. But there is more empirical and historical evidence that they are not than that they are. Their embodiment in the concept of 'good governance' only shows that the issue of governance is not as simple as is sometimes made out by politicians, donor governments brandishing the flag of 'democratic conditionality' and media people. It is a complex subject.
The Solomon Islands democratic system is not a gift of the West to Solomon Islanders. Western academic literature would fool us to believe that democracy is something the West is trying to bring to Solomon Islanders who are otherwise, in their normal behaviour given to dictatorial rule and authoritarianism. In the eyes of the West most of the Pacific leaders are so corrupt and so damned authoritarian; thus the western countries have the responsibility to teach islanders democracy may look like a caricature of what they say, but this, in fact, is more or less what they do say. Indeed, this is implied in the manner good governance (meaning democratic governance) has been made into an aid conditionality - democratise yourselves, they say, or else we shall not provide aid. This is usually said with a certain air of finality combined with arrogance.

Resources:
Efficiency in resource allocation and uses is the equally important as the need to foster institutions and an accompanying culture that makes for accountability. Inefficiency is not necessary always a function of corruption. It is often a matter of simple incompetence. Therefore, the technical competence of public administration in especially the civil service is as important as its insulation from politics in the discharge of its cold technical functions, which in its own right is an area of concern in the continuing governance debate. This raises the issue of capacity-mobilisation and capacity-building, the harnessing of existing capacities and the building of new ones- and the related issue of incentives and conditions of service, in the public service generally which remains one of the most retractable areas in the Solomon Islands reform experience. Here I choose my words advisedly, I speak of the need for capacity-mobilisation and the building of new capacities. We talk very often of capacity-building, that very often the need is not to build capacity, but to harness the existing ones. Solomon Islands have experts of all sorts, in all places, many of whom are unwilling or unable to come home because their incentives are no good or because the program conditions are not favourable. It is important to recognise that there is a need to mobilise capacity before we even talk of building new capacity and it is important in this connection that the issue of incentives and improve working conditions in the public service and other government authorities need to be addressed.
Now, so long as new incentives and improve work conditions are addressed, obviously the work of capacity building and retaining capacity would be very difficult indeed. As long as the government machinery is not command by competent people, then the incentive framework is so bad that it acts as a major barrier to good governance.
Good Governance requires that resources be allocated and used properly on vital projects. Open comparative bidding in the award of major contracts as well as in the procurement of goods and services can also be enormously helpful in ridding the process of corrupting influences in the government machinery and in the case of aid funded projects also from the corrupting influences of patronage in aid offices. Although it is not often said, it must not be forgotten that the corruption we justly complain about, is to be found very often on both sides of the fence.
In addition to refining the resource allocation process itself by among other things endowing it with verifiable, efficiency promoting criteria, it is necessary to buttress the institutional arrangements with an effective treasure system, usually the office of the Financial Controller and Accountant General, and also a strong auditing system as an exposed exercise, usually the Office of the Auditor-General. It is also important to strengthen the public Account-committees of Parliament and finally Parliament itself, because constitutionally it is usually Parliament that peoples elected, that should have the mandate to ensure the government is accountable for the allocation and use of public resources.

Non-government Organisations (NGOs):
Let me now turn briefly to the last area of governance, which has seen perhaps the most existing even if controversial developments in the recent past. It is absolute important that the discussion on the role of NGO's be conducted dispassionately and constructively if the much talked about partnership between government, international financial institutions (IFI's), donors and NGO's is to take hold for the benefit of Solomon Islands development.
The political reforms that are taking place along with economic reform in many developing countries today are indeed creating a culture of pluralism that opens up great possibilities for grassroots organisations and organisations for professionals and business associations. Non governmental organisations - especially local ones with strong grassroots ties - can play a particularly useful complementary role in mobilizing popular participation in community-based activities whether these be population oriented or development programmes. Equally, international NGO's with wide ranging experience and especially those with access to development can be a very great asset indeed to Solomon Islands development effort. Our experience in during the recent crisis supports these views such that the following points need to be made;
Firstly, there is a need for self-regulation and coordination of NGO-activity by the NGO's themselves. It is not suggested that governments should do this but some NGOs may promote narrow sectorial interest even as they purport to advance aspirations. However small these negative tendencies might be, they point the need for improved governance among the NGO's themselves. Just as shareholders or stakeholders have begun to invade corporate boardrooms and are demanding accountability and improve governance from directors, who not too long ago were simply lords on to themselves.
It is important that we don't antagonism against NGO's by dragging the debate to such heights. Rather it seems to me that there is a great deal to be gained by forging a constructive partnership that liberates the creativity and initiative of the mass of the people and creates barriers to corruption.

Conclusion:
Let me conclude by looking at some conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing discussion as to how governance can be further improved. I believe that in light of the current debate and the actual practice of governance in Solomon Islands, not enough attention had been paid by political parties in fostering good governance. The parties have an important role to play in this regard, they must be more then just electioneering machines in the hands of rich people, machines that are simply used to organise that you go to vote for this or that person amidst a confused pool of promises and policies.
Finally as to the matter of how we can best describe and study good governance. There must be training grounds for political education above all else in Solomon Islands so that people can be educated to make choices and conduct good criticism. It seems to me that we have no choice but to study it historically and concretely. We have no choice but to study governance actually as it pertains on the ground in different countries, as supposed to what we imagine it to be or wish it to be. We have no choice but to see governance as the call of political power and to strive to understand what social and economic factors are responsible for its changing manifestations. This is the only way in my view that we can understand governance scientifically and be in a position as intellectuals to formulate proposals that are capable of effecting improvement in the practice of governance in Solomon Islands.

By Geoffrey Kaka
P.O.Box 1279
Bendigo 3552
Victoria, Australia

"Its the Economy, Stupid'"
Law&Order