A transformative change in public affairs demands a governance culture rooted in deliberation, value creation, collaboration and conflict-sensitive methods, writes Nasim Ahmed
EFFECTIVE public affairs management is increasingly demanding administrative abilities that extend beyond traditional hierarchical governance. As socio-economic changes accelerate, citizen expectations rise, and policy problems become more complex, the state must adopt strategies that encourage deeper democratic participation, co-creation of solutions, and consensus-based decision-making.
Four interconnected paradigms 鈥� deliberative democracy, public value, collaborative governance, and conflict resolution 鈥� provide a strong framework for modernising public management. Strengthening these approaches can shift administrative culture from an emphasis on compliance and hierarchy to one centred on participation, trust, and shared problem-solving.
Deliberative democracy highlights inclusive, reasoned, and participatory dialogue among citizens and stakeholders in public decision-making. To promote deliberative democracy, establishing structured forums for public reasoning and participatory discussion is essential.
First, local government bodies 鈥� union parishads, pourashavas, and city corporations 鈥� can expand participatory forums such as ward committees, open budget meetings, and citizen dialogues, ensuring they are regular, representative, and linked to actual decisions.
Second, ministries and agencies can implement participatory policy hearings when creating regulatory frameworks, particularly in sectors that affect citizen welfare such as health, the environment, and urban development. Digital platforms, online town halls, crowdsourced policy portals, and grievance redress dashboards can further increase access for young people, marginalised groups, and citizens in remote areas.
Deliberative democracy also requires a shift in administrative culture. Incorporating modules on deliberative practices into public administration curricula, public service training programmes, and in-service courses can prepare officials with the mindset and skills needed to facilitate inclusive public dialogues.
Tracking participation-quality indicators such as representativeness, transparency, and responsiveness can additionally strengthen accountability.
Public value theory stresses that the role of public institutions is not only to deliver services efficiently but also to generate value that reflects citizens鈥� shared goals, including equity, trust, environmental protection, and social well-being.
Instilling a public value focus involves redefining how public agencies measure success. Agencies should incorporate value-driven outcomes into their strategic plans 鈥� such as increasing citizen trust, ensuring fairness in service delivery, combating corruption, or strengthening community resilience.
Civil servants must recognise that legitimacy arises not only from legal authority but also from responsiveness, ethical standards, and citizen satisfaction. Therefore, performance appraisal systems should reward initiatives that enhance public engagement, transparency, and cross-sector collaboration. Mid-level officers 鈥� upazila nirbahi officers, deputy commissioners, and departmental heads 鈥� should be encouraged to identify local public-value priorities through citizen dialogues and co-created action plans.
Public value also calls for adaptive leadership, where administrators balance competing expectations: efficiency versus equity, growth versus environmental sustainability, and innovation versus risk. Training programmes should therefore promote creative problem-solving, ethical reasoning, and long-term systems thinking.
Collaborative governance involves the government working together with civil society, private-sector actors, non-governmental organisations, academia, and citizen groups to address complex issues. Development landscape already includes non-governmental organisation networks, community groups, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. However, collaboration is often fragmented, politically influenced, or limited to project-based partnerships.
To institutionalise collaborative governance, stable platforms for cross-sector cooperation must be established. Issue-based networks 鈥� such as climate resilience forums, urban mobility councils, or public health coalitions 鈥� can bring together diverse actors for regular consultation and joint planning. These bodies should have clear mandates, shared data systems, and transparent decision-making processes.
Local government units can act as hubs for collaboration by creating multi-stakeholder committees that include farmers, business owners, youth groups, non-governmental organisations and professional organisations. For instance, disaster management committees can bring together local volunteers, community-based groups, and technical specialists to improve preparedness and early warning systems.
Collaborative governance also relies on trust, which in turn depends on transparency. Government agencies should regularly share data, reports, and plans with partners, allowing for joint problem assessment and solution development. Digital governance platforms can serve as shared knowledge repositories, especially in sectors such as agriculture, disaster response, and public health.
Conflicts, whether administrative, political or community-based, are inherent to governance. Disputes arise in land use, infrastructure projects, environmental initiatives, and local power dynamics. Standard administrative responses often depend on hierarchical authority, coercion, or procedural remedies, which may fail to address root causes or promote consensus.
Incorporating conflict resolution into public management requires officials to adopt approaches such as mediation, negotiation, and dialogue. Officers need training to recognise underlying interests rather than focusing solely on stated positions. Community mediation centres, which have effectively resolved minor disputes, can be strengthened and integrated with formal administrative systems.
Conflict-sensitive project planning is essential. Infrastructure projects, including roads, embankments and industrial zones, should feature early conflict mapping to anticipate disputes over land acquisition, compensation or environmental impacts. Participatory planning meetings can help prevent conflict by ensuring that affected communities are heard.
At the policy level, ministries can establish conflict-resolution units to mediate disputes between agencies or between the government and private actors. These units can help reduce delays in public projects and promote mutual understanding.
A transformative change in public affairs demands a governance culture rooted in deliberation, value creation, collaboration, and conflict-sensitive methods. These approaches equip leaders to address complex social needs, foster trust, and achieve sustainable development goals. By adopting these practices, Bangladesh can develop a more inclusive, responsive, and resilient governance system capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century and beyond.
听
Dr Nasim Ahmed, PhD in public policy from Ulster University, UK, is as associate professor of public policy at the Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management.
