نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار، گروه روابط بینالملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Within the realm of governance, the effectiveness of a government hinges on the engagement and utilization of collective wisdom. Research indicates that in less developed countries, debates often center around the fundamental principles of governance and the wisdom behind governmental actions, while discussions concerning policy formulation, planning, and decision-making are relatively scarce. Conversely, in more developed nations, controversies tend to revolve around specific decisions and policies, with little emphasis on questioning the underlying rationality of governance. This prompts the question: what underlies this disparity, and what are its implications? This study employs an analytical approach, distinguishing between two forms of rationality: foundational and policymaking. It argues that the strength of a nation lies in having foundational rationality, governance principles, and related matters largely settled and accepted, thus remaining outside the realm of everyday controversies. Conversely, issues surrounding policymaking rationality and national interests often become subjects of debate. It contends that a broader and continuous engagement with public opinion, along with a wider utilization of collective wisdom, leads to more optimal decision-making and policy outcomes. However, in weaker countries, both executive bureaucratic systems and external adversaries attempt to limit debates to matters of the first type, albeit with varying motivations. Consequently, they exclude issues of the second type from collective participation. This undermines the concept of governance and results in decisions related to national interests, policymaking, and decision-making lacking the input of collective wisdom. This scenario paves the way for autocracy within bureaucratic systems and middle management.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)