The Importance of Politics Governance and Government

Good governance principles are tightly knotted with anti-corruption measures. According to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, some of the foundation principles of anti-corruption measures are the same foundation principles of good governance. These include; participation, transparency and accountability. This highlights how intricately linked both concepts are. According to Kaufman et al some scholars argue that the lines between them are blurred and both concepts are one and the same, but he however rejects this claim. Pradhan, posits that governance is the manner in which the state acquires and exercises its authority to provide public goods and services while corruption is using public office for private gain. This is the importance of politics governance and government essay in which this topic will be considered.

Literature posits that countries who have good governance principles enshrined in their constitution and general society have an increase in anti-corruption measures and their social institutions run more smoothly as accountability – a foundation of good governance – encourages anti-corruption practices. Transparency International made the point that the constitutional design of a country can determine its success in the fight against corruption as well as setting up strong governance structures -mechanisms designed to hold different branches accountable - that promote good governance principles. Transparency International claim that with these provisions corruption can be effectively prevented.

Records from Transparency International Corruption Index ranks Singapore as one of the least corrupt Asians countries. According to Quah, Singapore’s constitution is one of the most admired and talked about models because of its unchallenged position as the least corrupt Asian country. Aonttiroiko makes the claim that other Asian countries are not ranked close to Singapore because their good governance principles which would foster anti-corruption measures are not tied in with their constitution. According to Anttiroiko, “the fact that corruption is not a way of life in Singapore is an indication of the effectiveness of the anti-corruption policy adopted by the People’s Action Party (PAP) government after it took office in June 1959”. The effectiveness of these anti-corrupt practices can be credited to their good governance practices. Prior to the 1950s, the country was ridden with corruption and Anttiroiko blames inadequate legislation and widespread corrupt practices. Regulations were not in place to foster good governance and officials were not being made accountable for their actions. The PAP government in the 1950s relied heavily on the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to foster good governance practices and lead its anti-corruption plan and according to Johnston public institutions facilitate good governance ensuring the implementation of effective, equitable, honest policies. According to Quah, in the late 1980s Singapore’s good governance practices made its anti-corruption measures fruitful. Singapore’s socioeconomic and political advances can be credited to the country’s continuous and unwavering good governance practices.

Anttiroiko also credits Finland’s socioeconomic and political developments to its good governance practices and states that contribute to their long and strong tradition of legality which in turn requires anti-corruption practices to incriminate corrupt practices. The principles of good governance are deeply rooted in Finland’s constitution and society. The Finnish government is known for its transparency globally. Records of the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International has continuously ranked Finland as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. According to, Anttiroiko Finland’s good governance and low levels of corruption can be credited to anti-corruption measures being in grained the country’s legislation. The common Finnish does not encounter corruption primarily because of their well developed legislation that dictates accountability and transparency, which are both principles good governance. Finland’s legislation has never excluded anti-corruption law and it never included a separate agency controlling corruption. According to Tiihonen in Anttiroiko corruption is seen as poor governance and criminality and thus is handled at all levels of legislation including the constitution. However, Jousten and Keranen argues in Anttiroiko that Finland integrating its anti-corruption measures into general good governance policies grounded on the rule of law is not necessarily effective. Anttiroiko claims Finland anti-corruption policies are by international standards weak because they do not have a different institution to investigate or prosecute corruption. This demonstrates that the foundation for anti corruption frameworks is not perceived as a multi dimensional phenomenon and as a result not is considered to require separate legal provisions or separate supervisory bodies, strategy or action plan as anti-corruption. Rose-Akerman counters this argument, claiming that governance reforms should concentrate on improving the interface between government officials, and private individuals and businesses. Institutions of integrity must therefore be created with the government that dictates accountability and efficiency.

Anttiroiko warns that historical, cultural and structural context may have a considerable impact on the success of anti-corrupt policies despite incorporating good governance in the constitution.Indirectly, good governance practices would be affected despite the anti-corruption measures put in place. The historical and social context of all countries is different. Anttiroiko also claim that anti-corruption policies are more likely to be effective where the literacy rate is higher and the society empowered. She also points out that a country’s administration must be systematically clean, eliminating opportunities for corrupt practices. Essentially, people respond to incentives and if public sector workers are better paid with better working conditions the likelihood of them being corrupt is lessened.

The conditions laid out by Anttiroiko are not completely representative of the reality in Jamaica. According to UNESCO, the literacy rate of Jamaica is a stunning 88.1% when compared to other countries. But with empowering Jamaicans a goal of Vision 2030, its is safe to assume that Jamaicans currently do not feel empowered with the country’s current state. Thus, this may be a factor for the failure of anti-corruptions measures in the country despite some good governance principles being present. It is also safe to assume that Jamaica’s administrations are not systematically clean with the number of corrupt practices that have been exposed.

Edwards admits that the paucity of good governance practices in the government’s administration is becoming alarming. Edwards blames corruption scandals on the lack good governance practices as a distinctive characteristic of Holness’ administration. Numerous corrupt practices have been exposed despite the numerous anti-corruption legislations and institutions being present within the society, raising questions on the importance of good governance and whether or not anti-corruption measures should depend solely on good governance principles.Prime Minister Holness seems adamant that they do. Recently the Office of the Prime Minister released a publication of the Prime Minister asserting his confidence that newly created anti-corruption frameworks and institutions will improve the perception of governance and deter corrupt acts. The Prime Minister claims that the anti-corruption framework is working - with the implementation of good governance principles at the front of the administration - although it is in its early stages and will require more attention to be effective.   

In conclusion, corruption is a consequence of the failure of a link between accountability and the government system. An absence of good governance practices facilitates an environment for corruption to thrive which reversely means that an increase in good governance practices increases anti –corruption measures and vice versa. Klitgaard highlights policy changes that are in accordance with good governance practices undertaken by the Philippines that reduced corruption and led to development. Klitgaard implies that it was the Philippine’s president need for good governance practices that led to conception of their anti-corruption framework. Having good governance practices may therefore suggest reforming legislative frameworks on how a country should be governed and how its officials should operate, that is, strategic anti-corruption measures. Hence, the need for good governance practices give rise to anti-corruption measures.