Community Networks and governance: Tensions, dynamics

neighbours, religious kinship, associations, work relationship etc. These are formed from regional, tribal, educational, marital or even ideological bases.
These community networks and interpersonal relations provide members with a wealth of social relations involving a quasi-widespread moral obligation for mutual assistance. Thus one member’s achievement is the achievement of all. Members also enjoy protection from perceived rivalry.
Informal governance structures are understood and accountability lines observed. Accountability lines follow a web of obligations, duties and rights. For instance a member cannot refuse to provide a service, a favour, and kindness to a relative, a neighbour, or a friend.
Intricacies dictate that one cannot deny favour or service to proxies. Whatever sphere members end up in, they are expected to take with them these network values and governance practices. Although some community members manage to shrug off some of the practices and accountabilities, community networks shape values in businesses and governments.
Leaders come from communities. Values and norms are founded and shaped by these communities and interpersonal networks from which leaders come.
Governance styles be it at corporate, economic or state level are a reflection of societal norms.
Some of the values that shape African businesses, for example are; community or collectiveness; external (especially spiritual) control as primary, not autonomy; supportiveness or solidarity; employees are firstly people, not workers or staff; time is qualitative, not quantitative; leadership must be established through care and integrity, not power and status and that wealth is holistic, not just financial or material.
On the other hand, business values in western countries include individualism, competitiveness and material success among others.
However, it must be said that there is a continual cross fertilisation of cultural values, resulting in shared values such as social investment, for instance, a product of African community values and western individualism. Corporate citizenship is a product of a mix of solidarity and competition.
Community networks have a built in “them” and “us” attitude. Just by not belonging to “us”, makes the other person one of “them” and a possible rival. Spinoffs of these networks are favouritism, nepotism and in some cases deep hatred or anger against members of other networks.
These developments are underpinned by “positive” social values of generosity, kindness, and gratitude. All members are expected to partake in these social values. Refusal will be condemned and perceived as a sign of being an ungrateful or unwise.
However, there will always be the poor among us, those who are “unnetworked”. Good governance requires that leadership govern in such a way that these groups in society are provided for. As outlined above, social networks are discriminatory. Networks are about conformity and they can be vicious to non members or deviants.
A biblical example of this societal tendency is the book of John, where a network of scribes and Pharisees, was eager to see the woman caught in sin of adultery stoned to death, in line with the Laws of Moses.
The other party to this sin was a member of the influential network and was not brought before Jesus. Fairness and justice demanded that there would be two people charged. Governance, which was a higher authority, fair and inclusive, had to step in, and saved the woman from being condemned. The social network of scribes and Pharisees supported and protected their own.
Networks are therefore a form of day to day management of interpersonal relations. As we move into economic activities and businesses, members use network structures to effectively mobilise resources to their own benefit.
These resources can be information, money, trust, protection and support and are referred to as social capital.
This highlights a major difference between management and governance. Management is about conforming and administering available resources of what is there.
Governance is higher than management and is about leadership drawing on his/her reserve tank of wisdom, knowledge, power etc, to ensure justice and fairness among all subjects.
Heemskerk, Elke writing about corporate community and networks of the Dutch elite, says corporate governance practices spread from one company to another through shared board members and network structures.
The norms and ethos that directors from various social and corporate networks, adhere to are instrumental in determining which practices do or do not spread. These informal governance values and norms from social networks are imitated in every socio-economic and political sphere. The intricacies of the networks and social capital result in concentration of power, and only the elite avail the resources.
It is therefore not surprising that the word “cronyism” is found in expanse of governance literature. The line between cronyism and “networking” is difficult to delineate.
Although cronyism is often used in political governance and public administration, the Wikipedia, describes the concept of cronyism in private sector to include the old boys club or the golden circle.
It is described as relationships that exist among mutual acquaintances in private organisations where business, business information, and social interaction are exchanged among influential personnel. This is termed crony capitalism and is an ethical breach of principles of market economy, and Enron remains a classic example of crony capitalism.
Social and corporate networks are a system wide, powerful and informal phenomenon, which is on the increase. Thus over the years community networks evolved into corporate and global networks. This is how one percent of world population controls global wealth.
The developmental challenge is that networks, which are informal structures, are replacing formal institutions. Research maintains that, because of the incremental nature of institutional changes it is possible to easily underestimate the magnitude and significance of these changes.
In politico-economic spheres, emphasis is on participatory governance. This type of governance is seen as a means to overcome governmental deficits, reduce information gaps and to build consensus around policy, lead to smoother implementation of state policies, ensure accountability and transparency in governance, as well as to enhance the credibility and sustainability of programmes.
The tension according to Edigheji (2006) is that institutions are being liberalised to allow for global capital network to come in and to promote participatory governance in order to make economies globally competitive, (for a global network of trading partners).
Institutions are changing under the weight of global capital networks, global trade networks and national societal networks. Consequently it is being asked who benefits from participatory governance?
Institutions such as parliaments are being transformed to merely rubber stamp economic policies from global economic networks. The worry is not so much in the concept of globalisation, as in the identification of the hands pushing the globalisation agenda?
At corporate level, interrelationship networks of shareholders and directors, determine corporate governance practices.
Heemskerk (2007) explains that changes in formal institutions such as legal frameworks are not in themselves sufficient conditions for institutional changes in corporate governance, but an adaptation to business practices in informal networks.
The governance argument is found within the reform agenda currently in place, where focus is on formal institutions, when the de facto power and control is within informal networks.
If the law only adapts to business practices, then should the rule of law be a yardstick for good governance? If leadership comes from social networks, then should bad governance be blamed on individuals or society? The same could be argued that society already participates in governance, by virtue of being players in social networks?
This is why many governance researchers conclude that there is no common understanding of the clarity and consistency of the overall objectives, purpose and result of the participation process of governance.
It is true that governance of corporations is in the hands of a few.
Legitimate and relevant governance reforms should therefore aim at these few rather than rule of law for instance. Focus should be on how individuals can be fair and just within and outside their social and community networks.
It is my belief that when society learns to be more tolerant of “rivals” or those who are not necessarily members, then that society is on the way to a leadership which is inclusive. When social networks learn to share resources, wider outside their membership, then society will be on its way to good governance.
Is the world due for a Cultural Revolution? A renewal of the mind where there is realignment of communities with what is fair, what is just and a simple love your neighbour as yourself?