Quality governance as a core principal

Quality governance is an essential overlooked core principal

There is a fundamental lack of interest in our societies when it comes valuing quality measured governance as a core principal. Very rarely do we see positions which are demonstrably nonpartisan, adaptable and methodically determined; and this from voters, politicians, public workers, corporate media, independent media, activists and advocacy organizations across political spectrums alike.

That is the reason why our public policies and coordination strategies often tend to appear sloppy and detached from the specific conditions of the domains they are addressing. That is the reason why societies are often inconsistently volatile on one end, or completely inflexible on the other. Countless decades of this disorganized mess has made societies vulnerable in becoming consolidated and transformed into systematic grids with very little reason, compassion and humanity.

Advocating for quality governing practices is not just another style or flavor of political activism, but is rather akin to the work of establishing missing foundational building blocks of a civilization. It raises the bar for what one expects from their society, themselves and others. It also provides moral high ground for political leverage and cultural legitimacy. In a time where many are losing faith in current forms of activism, advocating for quality governing practices opens the door to new possibilities and nonpartisan collaborations to make the world a better place.

Quality governance is a relevant nonpartisan principal regardless of one's ideology

Even if someone for example has a position that the government should not get involved in certain domains or contexts, they should still be advocating for quality governing practices for when they become reality. It should always be preferable for anyone that all interventions be as sensible, efficient, thoughtful and concise as possible. One can advocate for government non intervention at the same time as advocating for existing or proposed interventions to be of the highest quality as possible. And besides, what is not coordinated by governments should still be organized in an informed way my communities on a cultural basis, making the same advocacy pertinent.

Furthermore, even if someone supports certain existing or proposed government policies, it does not change the fact that they should still advocate for the methodologies used to both arrive at them and enforce them, to be publicly shared, evaluated and perfected. Governments are never perfect and the science of public policy constantly requires to be fine-tuned and adapted. Various governments across jurisdiction and the world end-up taking radically different governing approaches and to assume that they are all inferior to the country one happens to be born in is both ignorant and prejudicial. Public peer review and knowledge sharing is key for collaborative efforts with partner nations to advance the overall practices of governance. Refusing to share these details could be argued and perceived as having an isolationist perspective. The open advocacy and scrutiny of governing practices is also inline with the spirit of democracy, public diplomacy and informed voting.