By Henry Kyambalesa
October 11, 2025
The term “good governance” is defined in this article to refer to the dispensation of the functions of a local or national government that is characterized by transparency, accountability, rule of law, genuine citizen participation in governmental decision making, and recognition of the need for a free press.
Accordingly, the article is devoted to a brief survey of the following themes: (a) need for good governance; (b) the essential elements of good governance; and (c) the need for a propitious nation-state.
Necessity of Good Governance
Except for the People’s Republic of China (PRC), no country anywhere in the world should expect to attain meaningful socioeconomic development in the absence of a viable and genuine democratic system of government, the creation of which hinges on meeting the following prerequisites paraphrased by J. Fisher-Thompson (1996) from the conclusions of a study conducted by the Global Coalition on Africa (GCA) relating to the political transformation of a selected number of African countries:
1. Genuine and full participation of the various segments of society in making decisions concerning political issues and other matters which are of national importance;
2. Deliberate consideration of ethnic and other special interests in the distribution of power, educational facilities, health services, and so forth;
3. Acceptance and tolerance of independent news media and other local interest groups as important constituents of a functioning pluralistic society;
4. Maintaining a viable parliament, as well as recognizing it both as a body of people’s elected representatives and as the supreme legislative organ of government;
5. Creation of a truly free and just legal system, and impartial and professional civil police units;
6. Respect for, and protection of, the civic rights and freedoms of Zambian citizens enshrined in the Republican constitution and the rights and freedoms of individuals stipulated in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (UN);
7. Existence of political parties which have a sound and long-term national agenda, rather than parties that exist primarily to pursue partisan interests and/or the political survival of their incumbent leaders;
8. Recognition, by political leaders, of the populace as their ultimate masters and stakeholders;
9. A military establishment graced with, and run by, a cadre of men and women who are adjudged to be patriotic, apolitical, well-disciplined, and professional in character; and
10. Citizens who have a profound understanding of the crucial role they can individually and collectively play in the process of creating a more affluent, more peaceful, more democratic and more egalitarian society—such as by putting personal, ethnic, and partisan interests aside during local and/or national elections, and by reflecting more seriously on the goals and policies political parties and contestants pledge to pursue.
And, according to Julius K. Nyerere (1998), the key to a national government’s effectiveness and its ability to provide popularly acceptable and competent leadership lies in a combination of the following elements:
1. Its closeness to its people, and its responsiveness to their needs, demands and expectations;
2. Its ability to coordinate and bring into a democratic balance the many functional and often competing sectional institutions which groups of people have created to serve their special interests; and
3. The efficiency of the institutions (official and unofficial) by means of which its decisions are made known and implemented throughout the country.
Besides, Nyerere (1998) has underscored the need for government leaders to subject themselves to the dictates of their countries’ constitutions—a time-honored tenet that many post-independence African leaders have tended to ignore. The following is an excerpt of his views on this subject:
“All Heads of State swear to honor and protect the Constitution. This is as it should be; for the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We cannot respect ordinary laws of the state if we do not respect the Constitution under which they were promulgated. A scrupulous respect for the Constitution is the basis of the principle of the Rule of Law.
It seems to me that some of us tend to forget that logic. Presidents, Prime Ministers, and sometimes all members of a country’s government, seek to amend a Constitution in their own favor even when they come to office through, and because of, the provisions of a Constitution that they have sworn to honor.
Too often, for example, we have seen Presidents seek to lengthen the number of terms they serve, despite the limit laid down in the Constitution of the country concerned. If and when experience shows that the restriction laid down in the Constitution is too restrictive and need to be changed, the change should not lengthen the term of the incumbent office bearer, who is bound in honor to observe the restriction under which he or she was elected in the first place. And in any case, and more importantly, the first President to be elected under a restricted term of office must never change the Constitution to lengthen that term.
If he or she does it, it is difficult to see how subsequent Presidents can honor the new restriction. Furthermore, if the provision of a limited term of office irks one President or Prime Minster, another provision of the Constitution could irk another President or Prime Minister. We might then expect the Constitution of the country to be changed after every General Election. This is a point which, in my view, needs great emphasis. No Respect for the Constitution leads to No Basis for the Rule of Law.”
And Article 21(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in December 1948 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has provided the following useful caveat for government leaders:
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
African countries have, by and large, incorporated this caveat into their national constitutions. Unfortunately, candidates fielded by ruling political parties in much of the African Union today have ostensively tended to flout their fellow citizens’ right to choose leaders in an atmosphere characterized by free and fair elections.
Elements of Good Governance
Essentially, ‘good governance’ requires government and political leaders to earnestly adopt the following elements, most of which are cited by the United Nations Development Program (2005):
1. Transparency: Public access to information about the state, its decision-making mechanisms, and its current and contemplated projects and programs—except for state secrets and matters relating to public officials’ right to privacy;
2. Accountability: Availability of a mechanism for ensuring that individuals are directly and fully liable for the outcomes of their decisions and actions, and the appropriation of resources assigned to them;
3. Rule of law: The existence of non-discriminatory laws and law enforcement organs of the government that are efficient, impartial, independent, and legitimate;
4. Citizen participation: Availability of channels and mechanisms through which the citizenry and non-governmental institutions can—directly or through representation—have an influence on governmental decision-making processes and the behavior and actions of public officials; and
5. A plethora of news media: Availability of a cornucopia of news outlets. A ‘free press,’ as Humphrey Mulemba (1996:9) has maintained, “need to be both encouraged and supported.”
In this regard, there is a need for citizens—particularly in countries where governments have a monopoly over TV and radio operations—to implore their leaders to put an end to the situation whereby large segments of the news media are state-owned, under tight controls by the government of the day, and the virtues of individuals’ rights and freedoms are subordinate to those of the ruling party and the state, to paraphrase Omolo J. Ochilo (1993).
It is undemocratic for any country’s government to deliberately and adamantly continue to have large segments of the news media that operate as tools of the ruling political party and its leaders.
In a democratic society, the functions of the mass media in general, and news outlets in particular, should essentially include the following, most of which are cited by Ken Auletta (2009):
1. To serve as a watchdog to the three organs of the government—that is, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.
2. To inform the public about issues which are of national interest.
3. To serve as a medium of communication that guarantees free and open debate and discussion among members of society.
4. To influence public opinion through impartial, balanced and fair analysis of issues which are of national interest.
5. To serve the economic system through sponsored advertisements designed to bring buyers and sellers into contact with each other. And
6. To serve as a medium for entertaining the public through:
(a) Comics, humor columns, crossword puzzles, sports coverage, and other forms of entertainment provided by the print media;
(b) Movies, comedy, music, sports commentaries, and other forms of entertainment provided through television;
(c) Music, comedy, sports commentaries, and other forms of entertainment provided through radio programming; and
(d) Video games, music, sports coverage, and other forms of entertainment provided through the Internet.
Besides, good governance needs to be fortified by an apolitical and non-partisan military. In other words, a country needs the services of a military establishment that is administered by a cadre of men and women who are adjudged to be patriotic, apolitical, well-disciplined, and professional in character in its quest for sustained peace and stability.
As Edward Shils (1960:22–23) has maintained, there is a need for military officers, intelligence officers, and the civil police in a country’s armed forces to consider themselves as being part of the ‘technical-executive intelligentsia’ who, together with politicized intellectuals (that is, civilian leaders), should play the role of guarantor of political stability, honesty and discipline in government.
Moreover, civilian leaders need to have constitutionally guaranteed control over all branches of a country’s defence and security apparatus, including the police, air force, paramilitary, and the infantry. For some countries, the defence and security apparatus includes the Navy, National Guard and/or any other similar organs or units.
However, it would be unrealistic and imprudent to expect armed forces to be apolitical and non-partisan if a country’s executive president or prime minister uses possessive terms like “my generals and my military” to refer to the armed forces and their top-level officers, as reported by Tal Axelrod (2019), Mark Abadi (2017) and U.S. Public Broadcasting Services (2019).
The armed forces and all the men and women who serve under such forces must never be treated as political cadres hired to serve the interests of a country’s president, prime minister or ruling political party.
Rather, they must be treated as national assets hired to protect their countries and their fellow citizens diligently irrespective of the kinds of politicians and/or political parties that may secure the people’s mandate to form government.
Likewise, it would be unrealistic and imprudent to expect armed forces to serve under civilian leaders in countries where there is a conspicuous absence of a system of governance designed to provide for peaceful removal of flagrantly corrupt, extravagant, despotic, nepotistic, and/or grossly incompetent government officials.
Civilian leaders in such countries should not wonder when any branch of their country’s military establishment decide to seize power by means of a coup d’état.
The Need for a Propitious State
Kingsley Y. Amoako (1998) has made a useful contribution to the issue of good governance. He has recommended the creation of a nation-state which has the following attributes: the state as a political order, the state as a system of laws, the state as the embodiment of the nation, and the state as the property of the people.
For lack of an orthodox term, let us provisionally refer to such a nation-state as “the propitious state” to distinguish it from the following kinds of nation-states, some of which are identified in the literature, as being characteristic of countries in much of the developing world and in some industrialized nations:
1. The Patrimonial State: A nation-state in which government leaders treat the state as their own piece of property;
2. The Predatory State: A nation-state in which government officials and political leaders look upon the citizenry as prey for their rapacious greed;
3. The Shadow State: A nation-state that is generally characterized by informal political networks and a shadow economy punctuated by illegal activities;
4. The Collapsed State: A nation-state in which common people are generally left to their own devices while government officials revel in conspicuous, state-financed luxury;
5. The Repressive State: A nation-state where leaders impose sufficient repression to keep their opponents weak and maintain their own power, while adhering to enough democratic formalities that they might just pass themselves off as democrats;
6. The Criminal State: A nation-state where the government is oblivious to crimes committed by government leaders and the elite, individuals with criminal records are appointed to positions of authority, and/or government leaders and the elite are engaged in criminal activities, such as money laundering, drug trafficking, human trafficking, or corrupt practices;
7. The Outlandish State: A nation-state where ex-convicts, impostors, conspiracy theorists, tax evaders, and/or election-deniers are either permitted to compete for elective positions or are appointed to positions of authority in the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government;
8. The Deep State: A type of clandestine or shadowy government within the regular government of a country consisting of influential and astute private citizens and elected and unelected government officials who, together, secretly control, manipulate and/or subvert the policies of a country’s national government, the purposes of which may include the pursuit of ideological objectives or corrupt activities;
9. The Shenanigan State: A nation-state where top-level government officials use their offices and positions as means for pursuing their personal goals and interests by engaging in devious, deceptive, mischievous, unscrupulous, and questionable behavior, maneuvers and/or activities;
10. The Cantankerous State: A nation-state governed by a bully-like executive president or prime minister surrounded by cliques of highly partisan lawmakers, bureaucrats and/or ordinary citizens who are inclined to circumvent national laws, constitutional provisions and the national interest in their support and protection of the president’s or prime minister’s parochial and egoistic agenda; and
11. The Docile Nation-State: A nation-state where citizens are, by and large, gullible and, as such, are easily duped and hoodwinked by overtly despotic politicians seeking elective positions in government to garner the support of such citizens.
Disclaimer: This article is excerpted and adapted from Kyambalesa, Henry, The Size and Functions of Government (Lambert Academic Publishing, 2022), Chapter 10 / Section 10.2.