The use and abuse of discretionary power, whether real or perceived, at the different administrative and managerial levels is almost a common experience to many of us.
A quick survey made on the many discussions held pertaining to the exercise of one’s discretionary power somewhat gives us the impression that much attention has been paid to its abuse and ways to prevent or curtail it.
Constantine A. Stephanou, Jean Monnet Professor at the Department of International & European Studies, Panteion University of Athens, in addressing the issue of good governance and administrative discretion, thus began with a general observation: “The exercise of discretionary power by the administration when it performs regulatory or implementation tasks may be necessary, and sometimes politically expedient. It may, however, undermine business confidence and, more generally, citizens’ allegiance to the political system. It is not therefore surprising that many governments are implementing policies for reducing or eliminating administrative discretion.”
It was also reported on ECorner (Stanford University’s Entrepreneurship Corner) that Pedro Aspe, Former Secretary of Finance, Mexico and CEO of Protego, when discussing sometime in April 2007 the two central conditions for an entrepreneurial society—that is to say, Education and Reliable Institutions—emphasized the importance of removing discretionary power, in matters of trade and finance, from the hands of public officials in order to increase the reliability of an economic system.
As a matter of fact, in our country as well, we have frequently heard calls or announcements pertaining to a much lesser use of discretionary authority among officials in the public sector—for instance, by allowing competitive bidding for tenders and contracts—so as to deter corrupt practices and ensure that integrity is alive and well here.
All such calls and moves tend to project discretionary exercise as having the propensity to be antithetical to good governance.
Yet, discretion itself has to do with the human mind, or more specifically, his reason.
The intimate relation between discretion and human reason, as far as nomenclature is concerned, may not be that explicit in English.
In the Malay language however, their intimate and symbiotic relation—in fact their identicalness—is so clear that anyone who is using it is naturally tempted to understand the English expression in terms of its Malay equivalent.
By this, we have in mind the composite term, budi bicara, its former constituent pointing to the human intellect while its latter component referring to the verdict and judgment that stems from the former.
In short, a verdict issued by the intellect or reason.
In this regard, unlike its English counterpart, budi bicara is meaning-wise less prone not only to abuse and manipulations but also to subjectivism and relativism.
However, if one were to generally view the exercise of discretionary power as being somewhat inherently—or very likely to be—opposed to good governance, then like it or not, one would unnecessarily also have to view human reason and its judgments with a certain amount of suspicions.
Yet, should one scrutinize the many measures and policies proposed to mitigate the abuse of discretionary power, one would then come to realize that in the final analysis one has to have strong faith in a working and active reason that is based on, or guided by, higher principles.
Such principles, insofar as their sources are concerned, are not solely derived from reason; in fact, revelation-as-religion provides many of them.
In the religious, intellectual and scientific tradition of Islam, such principles, foundations or premises are studied and examined as substantive logic, specifically known as maddat al-qiyas, dealing primarily with the contents of thinking and aimed at differentiating true, reliable principles from baseless and false claims.
Yet reason, in so acting and working, operates within a set of inherent rules which are none other than the laws of reasoning.
Herein indeed lie the three fundamental laws of reason(ing): the law of identity; the law of the excluded middle; and the law of non-contradiction.
In the aforementioned tradition as well, such intrinsic rational rules are analysed and scrutinised as part of formal logic, which is termed surat al-qiyas and mainly aimed at differentiating correct or valid thinking from erroneous reasoning and fallacious inference.
As such, in exercising their budi bicara, not only must our administrators and those involved in governance be fully aware of all the aforementioned but they also ought to be properly trained in them.
Otherwise, their bicara (judgment) does not proceed from their budi (mind).
But then, from where does the bicara originate?
