Snapshot: Different approaches to governance and development
Standard approach |
Nation-rebuilding approach |
Culture is portrayed as problematic. |
Culture is seen as a strength and asset. |
Decision making is short term, non-strategic and often externally controlled. |
Decision making is able to be longer term, strategic and under the control of the nation. |
External parties set the future direction. |
Future agenda setting is directed by the nation. |
Development is treated as primarily an economic problem and goal. |
Development is seen as an interrelated social, economic and cultural goal. |
Leaders act as hunters and distributors of resources and services, and make ill-informed decisions. |
Leaders act as stewards, nation-builders, mediators and mobilisers, and can make decisions based on plans. |
Accountability is upwards to external parties and focuses on financial administration. |
Accountability is downwards to the nation’s members and focuses on collective goals. |
Governing rules and frameworks are based on external values, standards and concepts. |
Governing rules and frameworks reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander political cultures and concepts. |
The result is failed governance and enterprises; politicised decisions; a governance culture that is dependent on external funds and remedial intervention; an impression of chaos and dysfunction; and continued poverty. |
The result is growing governance capacity; consensus decision making; sustainable enterprises and community development; a governance culture where risk is evaluated, managed and diversified; an impression of competence and resilience; and socioeconomic progress. |
(Adapted from S. Cornell, ‘Two approaches to the development of native nations’, Rebuilding Native Nations, University of Arizona Press, 2007)