Introduction
Over the past two decades, the concept of Good Governance has become one of the most frequently used terms in the literature of development, public management, and politics—an expression that, at first glance, seems to carry a positive, neutral, and universal meaning. Many governments, international organizations, and even research institutions present it as “the ideal model for administering public affairs.” Yet behind this appealing façade lies a hidden layer of political functions that often escape attention. Particularly in authoritarian regimes, Good Governance can be transformed from a reform-oriented framework into an instrument for legitimizing the monopolization of power.
Although Good Governance appears to emphasize transparency, accountability, and efficiency, in practice, some governments have turned it into a bureaucratic mask through which they can diminish—or even delegitimize—public demands for freedom and justice. In other words, a government may claim to be implementing “Good Governance” without giving space to civil liberties or placing social justice on its agenda. This is where a meaningful gap emerges between the theoretical concept of Good Governance and its actual function.
From this perspective, the central question of this article is:
When Good Governance becomes empty of freedom and justice, can it still be called “good”?
To answer this question, the following sections will first examine the definition and dimensions of Good Governance and then, using a critical perspective, show how certain regimes use this concept to mask oligarchy, suppress participation, and justify inequality.
-
What Is Good Governance? Definitions, Components, and the Contradictions of an Apparently Neutral Concept
In political and development literature, Good Governance usually refers to a set of principles and standards aimed at improving the quality of government administration and increasing the efficiency of public structures. This concept gradually entered policy discourse in the 1990s and quickly spread through international institutions and national governments. However, a closer look reveals that this concept is not merely a simple “management model”; rather, it is a political concept that can take on completely different meanings depending on context and interpretation.
In the classical view, Good Governance relies on several key components: transparency, accountability, participation, efficiency, rule of law, and justice. These components appear so self-evident and attractive that any government can claim to be pursuing them. Yet behind this linguistic attractiveness lie two important points that open the path for critical analysis.
First, these components are defined in such a way that they focus more on the quality of administrative and managerial performance than on the nature of political power. In other words, Good Governance cares less about who holds power and how it was obtained, and more about how that power is exercised. This perspective allows authoritarian governments to claim that they are achieving Good Governance without altering the structure of political power. For them, it does not matter whether freedom exists; what matters is that the administrative apparatus appears efficient, disciplined, and frictionless.
Second, the concept of Good Governance is elastic—so elastic that it can be adapted to multiple political and economic models. A democratic state may interpret it through the lens of participation and freedom, while an authoritarian state may employ the same concept by emphasizing the formal rule of law and administrative efficiency. These significant differences in interpretation show that, despite its neutral appearance, Good Governance can become a site of political contestation and ideological justification.
For example, the notion of “accountability” in an open society means accountability to the people, the media, and civil institutions; but in an authoritarian regime, the same term may be defined as accountability to “higher authority” or the “internal hierarchy.” Likewise, “rule of law” in a democracy means respect for laws grounded in citizens’ rights, while in authoritarian systems, law may become a tool for consolidating power, allowing governments to restrict political freedoms under the banner of “strict enforcement of the law.”
This is precisely where a contradiction arises that invites critique: a concept intended to guide the quality of governance can itself become an instrument of power monopolization. Why? Because in its original definition, two fundamental dimensions of politics—freedom and justice—are absent. This absence makes Good Governance resemble a “managerial recipe” rather than a “political model,” and thus it can support the preservation of existing power structures without requiring any real political change.
To understand why authoritarian governments are attracted to this concept, one must look at these flexible and apolitical features embedded in its definition. Whenever a political concept is defined without the essential elements of politics—freedom and justice—it will eventually become a tool for those who benefit from the exclusion of politics. Good Governance is no exception.
-
The Globalization of Good Governance and the Grounds for Political Misuse — How a Technical Concept Became a Tool of Power
To understand why the concept of “Good Governance” has become so popular among governments—from democratic to authoritarian—we must examine its globalization. Good Governance did not emerge in a vacuum; it took shape amid the economic, political, and discursive transformations of recent decades—conditions that pushed governments to increasingly rely on a language of legitimization. The globalization of Good Governance gradually created circumstances in which this concept could be used to justify authoritarian management and even suppress freedoms.
2–1. When a Technical Concept Replaces Political Concepts
Good Governance was initially introduced as a “technical” concept—focused on management, efficiency, policymaking, and administrative performance standards. This technical classification allowed many governments to present it as apolitical. This “depoliticization” created fertile ground for some regimes to use it as a substitute for inherently political concepts such as freedom, citizenship rights, and social justice.
In other words, the globalization of Good Governance, by downplaying politics, enabled some governments to argue:
“Democracy is not important; performance is important.”
“Freedom is not important; order is important.”
“Justice is not important; efficiency is important.”
Here, the first step toward authoritarian misuse is taken: changing the question itself.
2–2. Discursive Appeal: Why Do Governments Like to Talk About Good Governance?
Another reason for the global spread of Good Governance is its positive semantic appeal. No government openly claims to support “bad governance,” just as no one declares themselves against justice or welfare. Good Governance is a term that is attractive, harmless, and highly flexible. This appeal makes it a popular tool for governments to promote superficial reforms without altering the structure of political power.
In a world where media and public opinion play central roles, governments constantly need vocabulary that allows them to perform reformism. Good Governance offers exactly that:
A modern appearance, neutral content, and high potential for propaganda.
2–3. The Link with Development: When Development Becomes a Pretext for Centralizing Power
From the 1990s onward, Good Governance became embedded in international development documents. On the surface, this pairing seems logical, but it had significant political implications. Why?
Because development turned into a kind of historical and economic necessity—something everyone must pursue, and anything that hinders it must be removed. Authoritarian governments used this logic to argue:
“Freedom hinders development, so it must be temporarily restricted.”
“Media criticism disrupts order, so it must be managed.”
“Protest reduces productivity, so it must be controlled.”
This narrative turned Good Governance into a tool for moralizing authoritarianism:
Suppressing freedoms is not only not considered wrong—it is framed as an “action in favor of development.”
2–4. Dangerous Flexibility: A Concept That Can Mean Everything and Nothing
Another factor contributing to misuse is the excessive elasticity of Good Governance. The concept is so broad and interpretable that almost any policy can fit within it. This made it attractive to governments seeking to monopolize power.
For example:
• “Law enforcement” can mean protection of citizens’ rights or suppression of protests.
• “Accountability” can mean answering to the people or answering to higher authorities.
• “Participation” can mean free political parties or government-controlled councils.
When a concept is this flexible, it can easily shift from a reform tool into an instrument of authoritarian control.
2–5. Governments’ Need for Legitimacy: Good Governance as a Legitimizing Language
In the modern era, legitimacy is not obtained solely through elections or ideology. Administrative efficiency has itself become an important source of legitimacy. Many governments—especially those lacking democratic legitimacy—try to create symbolic legitimacy through displays of order, control, relative efficiency, and centralized planning.
In this context, Good Governance becomes a “conceptual shield”:
Governments that have eliminated real political competition use the language of Good Governance to present their rule as rational, scientific, and based on international standards. In other words, Good Governance hides political deficiencies.
2–6. Turning Good Governance into a Tool for Controlling Civil Society
The globalization of Good Governance brought along numerous evaluations, indicators, reports, and rankings. In theory, these tools were designed to measure government performance; in practice, however, some governments use them to construct controlled images of their governance.
This is why official Good Governance rankings in some countries bear little resemblance to the lived reality of their citizens. This gap is the product of the same mechanism through which Good Governance shifts from a benchmark for reform to a tool for manufacturing legitimacy.
-
How Oligarchies and Authoritarian Regimes Use Good Governance to Suppress Freedom and Justice
Despite the fact that the concept of Good Governance appears to emphasize positive principles such as transparency, accountability, and efficiency, within an authoritarian structure, it can take on an entirely opposite function. This section specifically analyzes how certain governments, by exploiting the ambiguity, elasticity, and technocratic appearance of this concept, turn it into a legitimizing tool for monopolizing power. The key point is that Good Governance, in the absence of freedom and justice, can become a cover for oligarchy, social control, and the elimination of democracy.
3–1. Good Governance as a “Technocratic Mask”: When Bureaucracy Replaces Politics
One of the most significant authoritarian uses of Good Governance is the technocratization of politics.
In this narrative, the government deliberately presents political issues as “technical” in order to evade accountability to public demands.
What is the result?
• People are excluded from the decision-making arena,
• Politics becomes a specialized and non-criticizable matter,
• Bureaucracy, instead of society, becomes the center of power.
This situation allows the state to claim it has achieved Good Governance merely by cosmetically rebuilding the administrative system, without undertaking political reforms.
In reality, bureaucracy plays the role of a curtain that conceals the authoritarian structure behind it.
Everything appears “legal” and “orderly,” yet the nature of power has not changed.
3–2. Co-opting the Concept of “Accountability”: From Accountability to the People to Accountability to Higher Authority
In democratic systems, accountability means the state must answer to the people, the media, parliament, and independent oversight bodies.
But in authoritarian regimes, this concept is inverted:
- Accountability to the internal hierarchy of the ruling party or leader,
• Reporting to security institutions,
• Execution of orders from higher officials
take the place of accountability to society.
What is the outcome of this shift?
“Accountability” becomes something that strengthens authoritarianism instead of limiting it.
The government can still say “we are accountable,” but the real question is: accountable to whom?
If the recipients of accountability are not the people, what remains is merely administrative obedience, not democratic oversight.
3–3. Power-Oriented Interpretation of Rule of Law: Law as an Instrument of Repression
Good Governance emphasizes the “rule of law,” but this standard is meaningful only when the law emerges from justice, citizenship rights, and public oversight.
Otherwise, law can become one of the primary tools of authoritarianism.
In many regimes:
• Restrictions on freedom of expression are justified through laws against “disturbing public order,”
• The suppression of protests is carried out through laws on “unauthorized gatherings,”
• Media control is implemented under the banner of “protecting national security,”
• And the monopoly of power is reinforced by laws that claim to pursue “stability and cohesion.”
Here, the law no longer protects freedom; it becomes a barrier that devours it.
Yet from a propaganda perspective, these very actions can be presented as “law enforcement” and as part of Good Governance.
3–4. Eliminating Civil Liberties in the Name of “Efficiency” and “Development”
One of the most significant ways Good Governance is misused is by turning freedom into a “barrier to development.”
Within this view, any form of free speech, assembly, media criticism, or independent social participation is portrayed as a disturbance to order and an obstacle to efficiency.
Thus:
• A free press becomes “destabilizing,”
• An independent political party becomes “disruptive,”
• A civil association becomes “a threat to cohesion,”
• And social protest becomes “against national interests.”
This logic allows the government to say:
“To implement Good Governance, we must restrict freedom.”
This is exactly the point at which Good Governance becomes a fundamental contradiction:
a concept intended to strengthen democracy becomes a tool for justifying the restriction of the people.
3–5. The Sacrificing of Social Justice: Development Without Justice, Efficiency Without Equality
One of the missing dimensions in many official interpretations of Good Governance is social justice.
In certain narratives, justice is not seen as a goal but as an obstacle.
For example:
• Redistributive measures are labeled “costly,”
• Support for vulnerable groups is treated as “uneconomical,”
• And protests demanding justice are dismissed as “populist.”
This language is precisely what oligarchies need:
a justification for the concentration of wealth and power.
As a result:
• Structural inequality increases,
• The middle class weakens,
• And groups close to power benefit economically.
Yet all of these processes can be justified by governments as “development-oriented policies.”
3–6. The Model of “Authoritarian Stabilization”: Political Repression as a Requirement for Good Governance
Many authoritarian governments claim:
“To implement Good Governance, we need stability; and stability is impossible without political control.”
This logic yields a simple but dangerous conclusion:
- Political repression = creation of stability
• Creation of stability = requirement for Good Governance
Therefore:
• Political repression = Good Governance!
This “dangerous triad” is one of the most common tools for legitimizing authoritarianism in the modern era.
Within this paradigm, any protest, dissent, or criticism is not only unacceptable—it is framed as a “direct threat to the quality of governance.”
3–7. Distorting Participation: From Genuine Participation to Performative Participation
In Good Governance, participation means the active involvement of people in decision-making.
But in authoritarian systems, participation is reduced to “affirmative presence.”
For example:
• Appointed councils,
• Controlled elections,
• Government-dependent NGOs,
• And quasi-independent media
are all presented as evidence of “public participation.”
But in reality, formal participation replaces genuine participation—
and this is exactly what oligarchies need to maintain power:
the appearance of participation without its substance.
3–8. Conclusion of This Section: Authoritarian Good Governance Manages Power, Not Society
In sum, within an authoritarian framework, this concept instead of:
• creating freedom,
• strengthening justice,
• expanding participation,
• and building balance of power,
turns into a tool for:
• monopolizing power,
• controlling society,
• eliminating criticism,
• and legitimizing oligarchy.
This situation shows that Good Governance without freedom and justice is nothing more than a linguistic package—
a technocratic narrative for managing authoritarian rule.
-
The Positive Functions of Good Governance and Why It Fails Without Freedom and Justice
Although the criticisms directed at the authoritarian misuse of Good Governance are entirely serious and fundamental, it cannot be denied that the concept itself possesses valuable capacities for reforming governmental structures. In reality, the core problem is not Good Governance itself; rather, it is the selective implementation, technocratic politicization, and the separation of this framework from the foundational values of freedom and justice that transform it into a tool of monopolization. For this reason, examining the genuine and positive functions of Good Governance is important, as it shows how this framework can be liberated from authoritarian appropriation and transformed into a foundation for empowering society.
4–1. Good Governance and Increasing Transparency: A Tool for Limiting Corruption, Not Justifying It
Transparency is one of the central pillars of Good Governance.
In a healthy structure, transparency must:
- guarantee the free flow of information,
• provide public access to governmental data,
• and enable continuous oversight by independent institutions and the media.
In such a framework, transparency is not a slogan but an actual mechanism for restraining power.
However, experience shows that transparency without freedom of expression, a free press, and society’s right to question authority becomes nothing more than an administrative show.
Therefore, genuine transparency is tied to freedom—and cannot exist without it.
4–2. Real Accountability Is Possible Only When Power Derives Its Legitimacy from the People
Accountability is intrinsic to Good Governance, but it is meaningful only when:
- people can ask questions,
• the media can investigate,
• civil organizations can monitor,
• and real elections allow for the rotation of power.
Without these conditions, accountability to “superiors” replaces accountability to the people, hollowing out the essence of Good Governance.
Thus, accountability in the absence of freedom is a mechanism of politicization, not democratization.
4–3. Efficiency and Development Are Sustainable Only When Justice Is Observed
One of the goals of Good Governance is to enhance efficiency and promote economic development.
But development without justice:
- increases inequality,
• deepens class divisions,
• and ultimately becomes a source of instability.
The experience of various countries shows that development without justice leads to a legitimacy crisis in the medium and long term.
Therefore, efficiency is real only when it serves social justice.
This is precisely where Good Governance becomes inseparable from the two fundamental concepts of politics—freedom and justice.
4–4. Public Participation Is the Soul of Good Governance, Not a Formal Option
Participation is one of the eight principles of Good Governance—but not performative participation.
Participation is meaningful when:
- real political parties can operate,
• elections are competitive and free,
• civil organizations can act independently of the state,
• and people can play an effective role in policymaking.
Such participation:
- enhances the quality of decision-making,
• reduces corruption,
• and aligns policies with the real needs of society.
In other words, Good Governance without genuine participation is effectively incomplete, ineffective, and even misleading.
4–5. The Rule of Law Protects Rights Only When Law Emerges from the Public Will
Although the “rule of law” appears to be a technical principle, it actually rests on a political foundation.
Law is legitimate only when:
- it is drafted independently of power,
• it originates from justice,
• and it stands against power, not in its service.
When law becomes a tool of social control, it no longer belongs to Good Governance; it stands in opposition to it.
Therefore, genuine legality requires justice and freedom, and without these two fundamental values, legality becomes nothing more than a cover for authoritarianism.
4–6. Why Does Good Governance Become Its Opposite Without Freedom and Justice?
- Freedom ensures that power can be criticized.
• Justice ensures that power is distributed.
• And Good Governance ensures that power is managed.
If freedom and justice are removed,
“management of power” replaces “limitation of power.”
In this situation, Good Governance is transformed from a democratic framework into a bureaucratic and legitimizing system that hides its political nature behind a rational and technical appearance.
As a result:
- transparency without freedom = propaganda
• accountability without oversight = obedience
• development without justice = oligarchy
• participation without freedom = political performance
• legality without justice = legalized repression
This is precisely the point at which the concept of Good Governance must be liberated from authoritarian interpretations.
4–7. The Necessity of Redefining Good Governance: A Model Grounded in Freedom and Justice
For this concept to transform from an instrumental concept into a genuine political–ethical framework, it is necessary that:
- Civil liberties be accepted as a starting condition.
- Social and distributive justice be placed at the heart of policymaking.
- Genuine participation and competitive democracy be prerequisites for legitimacy.
- Public oversight and a free press guarantee transparency.
- Law serve the rights of the people, not the structure of power.
Only through such a redefinition can Good Governance regain its fundamental function and instead of being a mask for authoritarianism, become a foundation for democracy and sustainable development.
Conclusion
Good Governance: A Valuable Yet Vulnerable Concept in the Face of Authoritarian Appropriation
This concept is undoubtedly one of the most influential and widely used concepts in contemporary policy literature. With its emphasis on transparency, accountability, participation, efficiency, and the rule of law, it seeks to present an image of a healthy and orderly system of government capable of paving the way toward sustainable development.
But, as we have shown, the major weakness of this concept lies in its semantic ambiguity, conceptual elasticity, and wide interpretability. These features have made Good Governance easily susceptible to authoritarian appropriation—allowing it to serve both democracy and authoritarianism depending on who defines it and how it is applied.
In many authoritarian governments, this concept is not used as a framework for enhancing freedom and justice but as a technocratic mask for consolidating political and economic power. These regimes present civil liberties as sources of instability and social justice as obstacles to development, effectively discarding the two foundational pillars of politics. Instead, concepts such as “stability,” “efficiency,” and “legality” are introduced in distorted forms as replacements. In such systems, transparency becomes controlled reporting, participation becomes formal performance, and legality becomes a tool for restricting citizens’ rights.
From this perspective, one can say that if this concept is separated from freedom and justice, it becomes an instrument of authoritarian legitimization rather than a framework for improving the quality of governance. This is precisely the point our critical approach seeks to emphasize: Good Governance must be redefined—not discarded. It must be freed from bureaucratic, technocratic, and security-driven interpretations and rebuilt on the two foundational values of politics—freedom and justice.
The Way Forward
For Good Governance to return to its true meaning and avoid becoming a tool for concentrating power, several essential principles must be upheld:
- Freedom as a prerequisite: Without freedom of expression, a free press, and the possibility of public criticism, none of the criteria of Good Governance have meaning.
- Justice as the ultimate goal: Development that sacrifices justice will inevitably lose its legitimacy.
- Public oversight and participatory democracy: True public participation must be the foundation of decision-making, not its superficial form.
- Law in service of society, not power: The rule of law is genuine only when it protects the rights of citizens.
- Transparency beyond data—transparency in power: Transparency survives only through society’s capacity to question, not through selective publication of information.
Good Governance is inherently a positive, progressive, and reformist concept. But contemporary history shows that if it is separated from freedom and justice, it has the potential to become a tool for justifying authoritarianism. For this reason, our scientific and political responsibility is not to completely reject this concept but to critically and democratically redefine it. Good Governance leads to sustainable development, improved quality of life, and expanded social participation only when it is founded upon civil liberties and social justice; otherwise, it becomes a bureaucratic, justificatory structure that ultimately legitimizes oligarchy.
In a world where political concepts are more rapidly and easily appropriated than ever before, a critical re-reading of Good Governance is not only necessary but essential—because without such critical examination, “Good Governance” can all too easily become an instrument of “bad governance.”
