Governing via outcome-oriented thinking

By Dr MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
SENIOR FELLOW/DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, IKIM

Governance is not simply about the process of decision-making and implementation but also about the substance of the act.

We have stated earlier that there has been unanimity among Muslim scholars on the meaning of tadbir, a major Arabic term signifying administration, management, or governance (see IKIM Views of Oct 28 and Dec 23 2008).

To illustrate, we also related the definitions offered by three past Muslim scholars, namely, al-Baydawi (d. 791H), al-Jurjani (d. 816H) and al-Tahanawi (d. 1158H).

Their definitions, just like those of other Muslim luminaries, at the very least highlight two fundamental points regarding the act or process which may correctly be referred to as tadbir.

Firstly, purpose or end is both integral and central to such an act or process.

Secondly, in line with the paramount role of tawhid (unity as well as unifying) in Islam, the act or process not only encompasses two different operational modes – knowledge and practice – but also integrates both the foregoing into an organic single.

At the level of knowledge, it comprises one’s act of deliberating the possible outcomes with every intention of knowing what is good.

At the practical stage, it involves the act of executing something in order to obtain good results.

It should also be noted that both knowledge and practice involved in the process of tadbir do not simply aim for any goal, but only at goals which are praiseworthy.

In this respect, tadbir is an extension and the embodiment of the freedom of choice in Islam which, as argued by Professor Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, is termed ikhtiyar (ikhtiar in Malay) and ought to be based solely on what is good (khayr).

In short, such definitions demonstrate that governance is not simply about the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented but also about the substance of the decision-making, namely – noble ends, desirable outcomes, praiseworthy results, and good consequences.

It is also pertinent here that one be cognizant of the fact that eminent Muslim lexicologists, such as ibn al-Manzur (d. 711H) in his Lisan al-‘Arab and al-Firuzabadi (d. 817H) in his al-Qamus al-Muhit have recorded that tadabbur – which is a verbal noun of another cognate word, tadabbara – is synonymous with the meaning of tadbir at the epistemic or theoretical level.

The expression tadabbara al-amr, being the fifth derivative of the triliteral root verb da-ba-ra, connotes one’s search for the end, or outcome, of an affair.

In the above sense, therefore, tadabbur is synonymous with tadbir which, as previously explained, consists of one mentally looking into the outcome of an affair and, depending on the occasion, may be rendered into English as purposive reflection, foresight, or prudence.

In fact, al-Jurjani in his famous Book of Definitions succinctly explained the subtle difference between the two modes or types of thinking, one termed tafakkur and the other tadabbur.

According to him, although both are mental acts or dispositions, the former consists of one directing one’s mental observation and scrutiny towards proof or evidence, whereas the latter involves one directing attention towards the end or outcome.

It is therefore clear that tadbir at the epistemic level, or tadabbur as its synonym, denotes a particular mode of thinking, namely, thinking which is being specifically directed towards an outcome or result with the intention of knowing what is good, praiseworthy and noble.

Hence, any act of governance, management or administration deserved of being referred to as tadbir needs not only involve that mode of thinking but also needs to nurture and nourish it.

Otherwise, one is simply misappropriating the term.