Supervision: An integral pillar of sound governance

international financial institutions, the legal fraternity, accounting and auditing bodies, the academia and many other stakeholders committed a great deal of effort in improving the quality of the regulatory and supervisory framework for finance.
It was hoped that a combination of stronger regulatory frameworks and more effective supervision would help to avoid, or at least mitigate the effects of yet another crisis. Initiatives, such as the Basel Core Principles for Effective Bank Supervision, emerged and various laws were introduced and reinforced to bolster the role of supervision in the financial services sectors.
For instance, in the UK the Turner Review of 2009 specifically recommended that both the Bank of England and Financial Service Authority should be extensively and collaboratively involved in macro-prudential supervision. Buiter (2009) proposed more central bank involvement in supervision because of the connection with lender of last resort function, adding on to  earlier proposals by Cecchetti (2007) who had stated that central banks should be involved in supervision  for reasons of efficiency in the production and use of timely information, as well as for the ability to internalise trade-offs.
The supervisory role would be more effective in the financial services sector when as Claessens et al (2010) recommended that there is co-ordination among supervisory agencies, clear mandates, clear lines of communication and co-ordination among supervisors. 
In Zimbabwe, the National Payment Systems Act (Chapter 24:22), empowers the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to act as a supervisory agent in maintaining the financial and technical integrity of payment systems.
Supervision as a pillar of sound governance can best be viewed in one of the many definitions and descriptions, which view governance as “systems and processes concerned with ensuring the overall direction, effectiveness, supervision and accountability of an organisation”.
In this way, the importance of supervision can be seen in the same light with boards being providers of the overall direction to organisations. Organisational systems and processes of supervision are not just limited to boards and leadership, but include shop floor levels as well. The description that supervision is about overseeing the work or tasks of another implies the inclusion of lower levels, as well as boards of organisations in supervision. At institutional levels, supervision can be seen in regulation, which involves controlling behaviour by rules or restrictions. Oversight, which is sometimes used interchangeably with supervision depending on the context, is about management by overseeing the performance or operation of a person or group.
Thus for instance in financial governance or public finance management parliament and external audit bodies have a supervisory role on financial performances of state run or state supported institutions.
In view of the above discussions, supervisory failure which is blamed for the financial and economic crisis is simply about the failure to keep an eye on the behaviour, performance or operation of people or institutions. Various views emerge in the governance discourse about the causes of supervisory failures, such as: deficiencies in internal processes, management discipline and supervisory skills, lack of supervisory resources, deficiencies in governance of supervisors, lack of attention to systemic risks and many more.
As one observes how systems and processes work, such as at passport offices, within the waste management systems, health delivery services and so forth, it is evident that there is an increase in the culture of supervisory failure, where supervisors simply fail to control the behaviour of subordinates in a co-ordinated and transparent manner, on one hand, and subordinates just refusing to be controlled or to respect authority, on the other hand. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun.
In the book of 1 Peter 5:2-5, the Bible says that shepherds (supervisors) should shepherd the flock of God, “exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God and not for shameful gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording or domineering over those in your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
“You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for ‘God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble’”.
In an era where education, knowledge or connections have puffed up many people’s egos, humility is what is required of a subordinate, no matter how many degrees, experience or contacts in higher offices one has, to take instructions and respect authority.
Likewise, it is humility that will also cause a supervisor to exercise oversight without domineering or lording it over subordinates. It is distressing to see the states of insecurity among people and societies, despite the many external and material acquisitions. This is a reflection of disorder.
Again, the Bible in the book of Hebrews Chapter 5: 12-14 teaches that “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”
When we gained knowledge through education and training, it seems as though many are stuck in the achievements or even the failures of yesterday, which is infant milk according biblical teaching cited above.
Good governance is about having a teachable spirit as well as developing the ability to continuously discern good and evil. The solid food for the mature requires the strength and discipline to consistently choose to do what is good.  It does not stop at just the one choice; because when one does well, it soon becomes the past and there arises the need to practice for yet again another good, effectively meaning that learning is a life-long experience.
Lance Armstrong says that as soon as he steps off the bike after a win, he starts to focus and practice for the next win and to develop another American Tour de France winner. Developing good governance is about the willingness to examine failure, and in the words of Armstrong; “not just to look at outward physical performance, but your internal workings, too. Losing can be valuable. How you behave in those moments can perhaps be more self-defining than winning could ever be. Sometimes losing shows you for who you really are.”
Could the state of governance as shown in supervisory failure be a reflection of who we really are? There is need for louder voices to implore people and organisations to be more governable, by respecting supervision. This way, we create order and systems that would then start to deliver.
l The writer is a researcher and consultant in governance.