نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• مجید وحید ¹
• کریستیان وِلو ²

¹ دانشیار علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

² دانشیار علوم سیاسی دانشگاه لیون، لیون، فرانسه.

چکیده

وجه نظر ما در این مقاله ایضاح این واقع است که پاره­ای از مهم­ترین مفاهیم علوم اجتماعی و انسانی آنگاه‌ که وارد ایران می­شوند از مضمون اصلی خود خالی شده و مضمونی دیگر، متفاوت و حتی متغایر، می­یابند. حکمرانی در این شمار جای دارد. این مفهوم که اکنون بر زبان­های زیادی، چه در میان حکومت­گران و چه در میان نخبگان دانشگاهی و غیردانشگاهی، بسیار جاری است، به معنای شایع آن در محیطی که پدید آمده، به کار نمی­رود. واقع حکمرانی مرتبط با پارادایمی جدید در علوم اجتماعی و علم اقدام عمومی است که دلالت بر حکومت بر اساس مشاوره با نهادها و افراد برخاسته از جامعه مدنی و مشارکت آنان در تمام فرایندهای اقدام حکومتی دارد. مدلول حکمرانی، در ایران، اما، تفاوتی با حکومت­گری یا سیاست ورزی ندارد.
هدف از این مقاله، بنابراین، آشکار ساختن فحوای مفهوم و پارادایم حکمرانی در مبدأ تشکیل آن است. بدین منظور، شماری از مهم­ترین ادبیات این حوزه خاصه در فرانسه، و البته در آمریکا، مورد تأکید قرار می­گیرد تا آشکار شود که حکمرانی در نسبت وثیق با سیاست­های تأسیسی، مشاوره بنیان و فروتنانه است. نیز، با اعتقاد به ارزش­های روشنگرانه روش سنخ ­شناسی، بر انواع یا اقسام حکمرانی، مشتمل بر حکمرانی شرکتی، حکمرانی خوب و حکمرانی جهانی، پرتو افکنده می­شود تا مدلول­های مفهوم وضوح بیشتر یابد. کارهای ژک شوالیه، میشل کروزیه، پاتریک هاسنتوفل  و تئودور لِوی، بدین منظور، در میان دیگر منابع، مورد بهره­برداری قرار خواهند گرفت.
روش ما، مقایسه­ای نیز، به تلویح، هست. تصریح ما بر واقع حکمرانی در محیط پدیداری­اش دلالت بر انحراف آن در محیط وارداتی‌اش دارد. خالی نمودن مفاهیم علوم اجتماعی، و خاصه مهم­ترینشان، از مضمون اصلی مخاطره بار است. نخست به این دلیل که راه گفتار با بیرون از کشور را دشوار می­سازد چه از واژگان یکسان معانی همسان مراد نمی­شود. دوم از این رو که مفاهیمی که بسیار می­توانند اسباب تفکر و عمل تغییر را فراهم آورند، به­یک­باره، معنایی نظیر مفاهیم شایع دیگر می­یابند و از فضیلت­ها یا هنرهای تغییر آفرین خود یکسره تهی می­‌گردند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• حکمرانی
• تعریف حکمرانی
• محک‌های حکمرانی
• انواع حکمرانی
• حکمرانی ایرانی

موضوعات

• سیاستگذاری عمومی

عنوان مقاله [English]

On Governance, One Concept and Two Contents?

نویسندگان [English]

• Madjid Vahid ¹
• Christian Velud ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

² Associate Professor, Department of Political Sciences, University of Lyon, France .

چکیده [English]

Introduction

Some concepts fall victim to their success. Such is the case with the idea of governance in the Islamic Republic of Iran. A vigilant observer notes that this concept is commonly used by politicians and certain elites without any serious consideration being given to its scientific meaning. On the other hand, it is notable that a significant number of institutes (Think Tanks) and even departments attached to universities are emerging with the same mindset. The most striking example of this is the hasty and unconsulted creation of the Faculty of Governance at the University of Tehran, at the instigation of its presidency.
The aim of this article is therefore to clarify the concept of governance and show that it is more than just a concept; it is a paradigm paving the way for a new way of looking at the conduct of State and public policies and actions, intertwined with the nation's diplomatic strategies. To this end, we have examined the definition of the concept and its evolution in political and scientific fields, particularly in France, based on literature that is essentially French but also American. We have drawn on the masterworks of such illustrious authors as Jacques Chevallier, Michel Crozier, Jean-Claude Thoenig, Pierre Lascoumes, Patrick Le Galès, Yves Mény, Patrick Hassenteufel, and Theodore J. Lowi.

Materials and Methods

This approach proved beneficial insofar as it enabled us to shed light on the typology of public policies, on the evolution of State actions from the 19th century to the present day, and on analyses from the center of organizational sociology in order to show the familiarity between constituent policies, consultative policies, modest policies, and the notion of governance. Additionally, we explored how these governance frameworks influence and are influenced by Iran's diplomatic engagements on the international stage.
 
For a more detailed analysis, we employed both qualitative and quantitative analytical methods. Document reviews, case analysis, expert interviews, and analysis of existing data were among the methods used for gathering and analyzing information.

Results and Discussion

Our study revealed that governance can take three distinct directions: corporate governance, good governance, and global governance. These types of governance are jointly visible and at work in the conduct of public affairs in modern countries and in their diplomatic initiatives. Their absence is not difficult to demonstrate in a country like Iran. This typology of governance shows just how far the reality of governance is from the practice of policy-making and diplomacy in Iran. The logic of Iran's R.I. means that policy is conducted vertically, demonstrating that the rulers' approach is merely a top-down one. In fact, policies are drawn up at the top of the State, and then transferred to the administrative apparatus, with the requirement that orders be carried out and that citizens be excluded from almost the entire process.
The usefulness of this working method, which can be described as comparative, is obvious to us. It shows how the imported State, in this case the State of the I.R. of Iran, following its access to the monopoly of power, can show itself capable of hijacking modern concepts to use them on its own territory for its own ends, and more strangely how elites, academics in part, accompany the State in this direction and justify its actions.

Conclusion

In our view, this misappropriation will have problematic effects. In the first place, it makes dialogue between the country's elites and academics and those outside the country difficult, if not impossible, as it requires them to explain the content of the concept beforehand, and its use with two distinct and contradictory meanings. In the past, the use of other concepts in this way has been a source of ambiguity and confusion. The best examples are the concepts of constitution and civil society. With regard to the latter, we recall that the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, came to power insisting on the need to respect civil society. Once in power, he pointed out that the typical example of civil society in his mind was the one that existed at the time of the Prophet of Islam in the 7th century of the Christian era.
Secondly, it blocks the virtues of change in a concept that lies at the heart of a new paradigm in the social sciences and the sciences of government. We are convinced that the governance paradigm, understood in its original meaning, is apt to invite heavy-handed, arrogant States to open up to greater modesty and accountability towards their citizens and to give more space to civil society, which will inevitably lead to the construction of a more efficient and, by extension, more legitimate State, with a more nuanced and effective approach to diplomacy.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Governance
• Governance Definition
• Governance Criteria
• Governance Types
• Iranian Governance