SDG16: Promote Just, Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
Peace, stability, human rights and effective governance based on the rule of law are important conduits for sustainable development. We are living in a world that is increasingly divided.
Some regions enjoy sustained levels of peace, security and prosperity, while others fall into seemingly endless cycles of conflict and violence. This is by no means inevitable and must be addressed.
High levels of armed violence and insecurity have a destructive impact on a country’s development, affecting economic growth and often resulting in long-standing grievances among communities that can last for generations. Sexual violence, crime, exploitation and torture are also prevalent where there is conflict or no rule of law, and countries must take measures to protect those who are most at risk.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to significantly reduce all forms of violence, and work with governments and communities to find lasting solutions to conflict and insecurity. Strengthening the rule of law and promoting human rights are key to this process, as are reducing the flow of illicit arms and strengthening the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.
1.1 Introduction
Where is the Wisdom we have lost in knowledge. Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? (T.S. Eliot (1988) Choruses from the Rock)
We are talking about models. In this age of connectivity, instant communication and rapid global change, they exert a powerful hold on our collective conscience and individual minds. They are purveyors of data and ideas but all too often also of “myth” and misinformation. They shape our views and thoughts, not only what we accept and take for granted but also what we barely admit or contemplate. They are veritable censors, guiding our choices, our likes and our dislikes but also, on occasions, inspiring fears, false hopes and stereotypes (Hochschild 2018: 150–151). Such is the Market Model of Governance and Management which, since the 1980s, largely transformed our field, our values and profession. A hegemonic model, averse to all diversity and, in the name of “rigour” (Yang 2015: 103), hostile to heterodoxy, the model and its advocates reduced our field to management, mostly applied economics, and government to “business”. Reclaiming public space and rescuing our field from the sway of this powerful model may be viewed as a prerequisite to rebuilding the foundations of constitutionally democratic governance and, with the SDGs in mind, a better, peaceful world.
Not surprisingly, in an age of “hegemony” or “quasi-hegemony” by one dominant set of core beliefs, any conflicting set is instantly dismissed. Many a pertinent expression has crept into our vocabulary, in recent months: “fake news” and “alternate facts”, suggesting that purveyors of such “fake news” or “facts” are either ill-informed or mostly ill-intentioned. Reality, however, tells us a different story. It points to a disconnect between the world experienced by the bulk of the world’s population and visions of the world emanating from pronouncements of the dominant elites—political and economic. A bridge between the two could be constructed, plausibly, through open public debate. But standing in the way are hegemonic models—those progenitors, in fact, of what has been denoted as la pensé unique (i.e. politically correct, accepted ways of thinking). What we shall try to show is how those overweening models were mostly borne of an unlikely confluence of circumstances. Over time, they smoothed the path to a veritable backlash against the Administrative State and the public sector at large but also greatly favoured utilitarian principles and instrumental reason over democratic values.
Compounding the problem, as a commentator put it, albeit in a different context, “is a cultural and political shift in which we no longer debate those with whom we disagree. Rather we seek to marginalise and even demonise them” (Rosenblatt 2018: 7). Consider, for example, the following “News Analysis”, which made it to the front page of a leading New York daily: “In the aftermath of World War II, the victorious Western countries forged institutions – NATO, the European Union and the World Trade Organisation … to keep the peace … and shared prosperity” (Goodman 2018: A1 & A6). Note how the United Nations (UN), the premier institution, established in those years “for shared peace and prosperity”, is left out of the picture and, along with the bulk of humanity, excluded or marginalised. Note how, instead, the focus is riveted exclusively on “Western countries”, appropriating victory and its sequel, irrespective of the fact that World War II was predominantly fought and won in Eastern Europe and East Asia, regions which bore the brunt of casualties and damage from this devastating war. Lip service to objectivity and precision notwithstanding, it is hard to avoid the impression that the thin line separating fact from fiction and history from propaganda is all too often crossed with predictably untoward and far-reaching repercussions for democracy, sound governance, sustainable development and global peace.
History buffs and those old enough to remember recall that the New Deal was that great departure in governance which sprang our field into action. It prompted an expansion, as well as the development of new institutions of learning in public administration. The 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s were years that marked the rise of giants in public administration; those we commemorate with coveted awards. Training centres were also established. They presaged, in America, similar schools established by the UN or, through bilateral programmes, in the developing countries, as they struggled through state-building after decolonisation. Then, in the 1980s, came the counteroffensive—the veritable backlash of the Thatcher-Reagan years—and the ensuing counter-culture of “reinventing government” which, though now in decline, is still going strongly in places. We try to make some sense of these wild “ups and downs”, which have hardly availed our field and damaged our public service profession, subverting its core values. After such extensive damage to the fundaments of governance and public service professionalism, a lot in civil service and human resource management needs to be reconfigured and ought to be rebuilt on more solid democratic, people-oriented principles.
1.2 Surge of a Counter-Culture: The Administrative State and Service in the Cross Hairs
Late in coming, such soul-searching is particularly welcome in a discipline which may rightfully claim credit for many of the successes but also admit to failures of the past few decades. More in the ways of dogma and ideology than pure science, economists exerted an influence on our field which, since the 1980s, has both proved overweening and may have caused some harm. Of course, it brought a bonus: the quantitative methods which have invaded our field, allied to great advances in information technology. Those old enough to remember recall the weighty words pronounced by Ronald Reagan—the then newly elected president. They marked a generation. Inspired by Milton Friedman (1993), they posited that government was mostly a source of problems, not their solution, really. First, President Bill Clinton echoed those words, affirming that “the days of big government were definitely over” (Krugman 2008: A23). They then became a creed, recently reaffirmed by the present administration, so prominently staffed by wealthy entrepreneurs as to suggest, effectively, that only those who made it into the world of business may lay claims to a seat at the government’s table and partake of policymaking.
The logic of this attitude has had far-reaching consequences for our profession. Not only it narrowed its scope, but, what is more important, it also undermined its values. With university programmes in public administration receding nationwide, the field was reinvented as the New Public Management (NPM). It took a political crisis for the world to realise that these two are not synonymous and the distinction between them is not purely semantic. A fundamental difference of scope, method and ideology transformed the goals and functions of erstwhile Personnel Offices into those of human resource management (HRM). A manager’s first duty was said to be in control—handle resources sparingly, optimising their utility and cost-effective use. He was to “hire and fire”, thus affirming his authority and exercising power. So often reiterated during the 1980s and 1990s, a veritable mantra of the NPM said it all: “let the managers manage”. It drew attention, forcefully, to the occasional shortcomings of public administration evinced in the three decades which immediately preceded the Reagan-Thatcher backlash but followed the conclusion of World War II. These early post-war years will be remembered mostly as years of reconstruction, sustainable development, decolonisation and constructive cooperation through the UN—founded in 1945 to bring an end to wars (Mazower 2012; Langrod 1963).
Inevitably, in some cases, the process of emancipation and decolonisation entailing, necessarily, significant power shifts brought some dysfunctional outcomes. As a former defence secretary notoriously remarked, on the morrow of the occupation of the city of Baghdad, change can often be “messy”. Even short of going to war, long disadvantaged peoples, and other destitute victims of secular repression and exploitation, took advantage of relaxation of erstwhile stern controls. A recent publication of the International Institute of the Administrative Sciences (IIAS) recorded such abuses which, rightly or mostly wrongly, were laid at the doorstep of New Deal legislation and more so of Lyndon B. Johnson’s (LBJ’s) notable War on Poverty. They referred to “Welfare Queens”, allegedly thriving at the taxpayers’ expense (Newland 2015a: 111–144). Thus, “Welfare” became suspect and had to be changed to “Workfare”, during the 1990s—years that found “big government”, the “Administrative State” but also some trade unions in the cross hairs and politically under attack. Though, as regards trade unions, there can be little doubt that, in both North America and Europe, they have been known, occasionally, to act opportunistically, priming the personal interest and sectoral advantage over the public good, one may pertinently ask whether society is better off, and democracy secure without effective unions (Argyriades 2013a, b: 339–348). There is reason to believe, as recent experience has shown, that little good comes out of the present disequilibrium and the overweening power in the hands of those in power. An absence of constraints all too often leads to abuse and absence of professionalism in management and governance.
A rather strange reaction, in light of such abuses, the motto of NPM—“let the managers manage” —signalled a mighty backlash: revisionist attacks against decades of struggle to circumscribe the excesses and curb the powers of managers, when actions by such people effectively deprived clients, citizens and staff of their most basic rights. To all intents and purposes, such practices set the management’s prerogatives higher than other concerns and broader considerations. Historically, the sights of our profession—public administration—have been set on the citizen and resident, with service to the citizen and to the public good, under the rule of law, as the core and rationale of democratic governance.
It was precisely in light of its importance—the salience of the needs that must be addressed: our growing interdependence and the dependence of people on adequate, access...