Affiliation and Institutions

Affiliation

Politics has to do with influencing people, Policy is making consensus to planning, but Strategy has to do with organization, empowerment, vision, and in this sense ti resembles Filosophy, the integration of sciences.

Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship"^[1]) is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty. In the sense of the "art of the general", which included several subsets of skills including "tactics", siegecraft, logistics etc., the term came into use in the 6th century C.E. in East Roman terminology, and was translated into Western vernacular languages only in the 18th century. From then until the 20th century, the word "strategy" came to denote "a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills" in a military conflict, in which both adversaries interact.^[2]

Strategy is important because the resources available to achieve these goals are usually limited. Many companies use strategies to set goals Strategy generally involves setting goals, determining actions to achieve the goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources). The senior leadership of an organization is generally tasked with determining strategy. Strategy can be intended or can emerge as a pattern of activity as the organization adapts to its environment or competes. It involves activities such as strategic planning and strategic thinking.^[3]

Henry Mintzberg from McGill University defined strategy as "a pattern in a stream of decisions" to contrast with a view of strategy as planning,^[4] while Max McKeown (2011) argues that "strategy is about shaping the future" and is the human attempt to get to "desirable ends with available means". Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as "a system of finding, formulating, and developing a doctrine that will ensure long-term success if followed faithfully."^[5]

Components of strategy[edit]

Professor Richard P. Rumelt described strategy as a type of problem solving in 2011. He wrote that good strategy has an underlying structure he called a kernel. The kernel has three parts: 1) A diagnosis that defines or explains the nature of the challenge; 2) Aguiding policy for dealing with the challenge; and 3) Coherent actions designed to carry out the guiding policy.^[6] 

Rumelt wrote in 2011 that three important aspects of strategy include "premeditation, the anticipation of others' behavior, and the purposeful design of coordinated actions." He described strategy as solving a design problem, with trade-offs among various elements that must be arranged, adjusted and coordinated, rather than a plan or choice.^[6]

Formulating and implementing strategy[edit]

Strategy typically involves two major processes: formulation and implementation. Formulation involves analyzing the environment or situation, making the diagnosis, and developing the guiding policy. It includes such activities as strategic planning and strategic thinking. Implementation refers to the action plans taken to achieve the goals established by the guiding policy.^[3][6]

Bruce Henderson wrote in 1981 that "Strategy depends upon the ability to foresee future consequences of present initiatives." He wrote that the basic requirements for strategy development include, among other factors: 1) extensive knowledge about the environment, market and competitors; 2) ability to examine this knowledge as an interactive dynamic system; and 3) the imagination and logic to choose between specific alternatives. Henderson wrote that strategy was valuable because of: "finite resources, uncertainty about an adversary's capability and intentions; the irreversible commitment of resources; necessity of coordinating action over time and distance; uncertainty about control of the initiative; and the nature of adversaries' mutual perceptions of each other."^[8]

Bridging the gap: citizenship,participation and accountability

Andrea Cornwall and John Gaventa

Introduction

Around the world, a growing crisis of legitimacy characterises the relationship between citizens and the

institutions that affect their lives. In both North and South, citizens speak of mounting disillusionment with government, based on concerns about corruption, lack of responsiveness to the needs of the poor and the absence of a sense of connection with elected representatives and bureaucrats (Commonwealth Foundation 1999).

As traditional forms of political representation are being re-examined, direct democratic mechanisms are increasingly being drawn upon to enable citizens to play a more active part in decisions which affect their lives. In this context, the questions of how citizens – especially the poor – express voice and how institutional responsiveness and accountability can be ensured have become paramount.

In this article, we explore some of these challenges. Repositioning participation to embrace concerns with inclusive citizenship and rights, we examine a range of contemporary participatory mechanisms and strategies that seek to bridge the gap between citizens and the state.

New contexts, new challenges

In many countries, measures to bring government ‘closer to the people’ through decentralisation and devolution have prompted shifts in approaches to service delivery that have widened spaces for citizen involvement. At the same time, the increasing marketisation of service delivery in many countries has introduced new roles for those who were formerly the ‘beneficiaries’ of government services.

Users have come to be seen as ‘consumers’ or ‘clients’ and civil society organisations have become significant coproducers of what in the past were largely state functions.

To some, these new roles are seen as welcome forms of partnership between the state, the market and civil society, while to others they suggest the danger that the state is off-loading its larger social responsibilities to private or non-governmental actors (Cornwall and Gaventa, 2000). 

Bridging the gap

In the past, there has been a tendency to respond to the gap that exists between citizens and state institutions in one of two ways. On the one hand, attention has been made to strengthening the processes of participation – that is the ways in which poor people exercise voice through new forms of inclusion, consultation and/or  mobilisation designed to inform and to influence larger institutions and policies. 

On the other hand, growing attention has been paid to how to strengthen the accountability and responsiveness of these institutions and policies through changes in institutional design and a

focus on the enabling structures for good governance. 

Each perspective has often perceived the other as inadequate, with one warning that consultation without attention to power and politics will lead to ‘voice without influence’ and the other arguing that reform of political institutions without attention to inclusion and consultation will only reinforce the status quo.

Increasingly, however, we are beginning to see the importance of working on both sides of the equation. As concerns about good governance and state responsiveness grow, questions about the capacity of citizens to engage and make demands on the state come to the fore. In both South and North, there is growing consensus that the way forward is found in a focus on both a more active and engaged civil society which can express demands of the citizenry and a more responsive and effective state which can secure the delivery of needed public services. 

At the heart of the new consensus of strong state and strong civil society are the need to

develop both participatory democracy and responsive government as ‘mutually reinforcing and supportive’ (The Commonwealth Foundation, 1999:76, 82).

Re-positioning participation

Both social participation and political participation have carried with them a distinctive set of methods or

approaches for strengthening or enhancing participation. Traditionally, in the field of political participation, such methods have included voter education, enhancing the awareness of rights and responsibilities of citizens, lobbying and advocacy, often aimed towards developing a more informed citizenry who could hold elected representatives more accountable. In the social and community spheres, we have seen the development of a number of broader participatory methods for appraisal,

planning, monitoring large institutions, training and awareness building. The emphasis here has been on the importance of participation not only to hold others accountable, but also as a self-development process,starting with the articulation of grassroots needs and priorities and moving towards the establishment of selfsustaining local organisations. 

Engagement in social and community participation has inevitably brought citizens in closer contact with the  institutions and processes of governance. Conversely,leaders of projects, programmes and policy research initiatives have increasingly sought the voices and versions of poor people themselves.

Where citizens have been able to take up and use the spaces that participatory processes can open up, they have been able to use their agency to demand accountability, transparency and responsiveness from government institutions. An informed, mobilised citizenry is clearly in a

better position to do so effectively; the capacities built through popular education on rights and responsibilities also extend beyond taking a more active interest in the ballot box. 

Equally importantly, however, where government agencies have taken an active interest in seeking responsiveness and have not only listened to but acted on citizens’ concerns, otherwise adversarial and  distant relationships have been transformed. Clearly, this also holds the promise of electoral advantage. These moves offer new spaces in which the concept of participation can be expanded to one of ‘citizenship participation’, linking participation in the political, community and social spheres.