English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The objective of this paper is to understand the complex relationship between the concepts of governance and modernity. Modernity created a crisis that inhibits achieving goals of governance in its both political and economic terms. The problem of governance can be understood from the arguments put forward by Carl Schmitt in his concept of ‘central domain’. He explained that contemporary human life is governed by the economic logic that describes human behaviour and responsibility as neutral to things and actions. In fact, many scholars have striven to rethink the nature of governance and its limits. Modernity has created its own moral patterns in accordance with the dominant models of governance. Governance itself has been transformed from a moral system of responsibility and transparency to just mere procedures to overcome constraints in controlling a society. Some scholars believe that the problem of corruption derives from lack of moral disposition that dominate ruling elites’ behaviour. This paper examines works of selected scholars in order to understand the relationship between modernity and governance and concludes that there is a need to rethink morality in understanding governance more than just think in restructuring of a range of legal and administrative procedure. There is a need to think radically about the nature of the current moral problem and its latent implications for governance.Keywords: Governance, Modernity and enlightenment, Crisis of modernity, Governance and morality, Problems of governance.  AbstrakObjektif kertas kerja ini adalah untuk memahami hubungan yang kompleks antara konsep tadbir urus dan kemodenan. Kemodenan membuahkan krisis yang menghalang pencapaian matlamat tadbir urus dalam kedua-dua terma politik dan ekonomi. Masalah tadbir urus boleh difahami melalui konsep utama Carl Schmitt yang menyatakan bahawa kehidupan manusia yang sementara dikawal oleh logik ekonomi yang seterusnya menggambarkan tingkah laku dan tanggungjawab manusia sebagai neutral terhadap segala sesuatu dan tindakan. Ramai sarjana telah menilai semula tabiat tadbir urus dan hadnya. Kemodenan telah membentuk pola moralnya yang tersendiri sesuai dengan model dominan tadbir urus. Tadbir urus itu sendiri telah bertukar daripada sistem moral yang bersifat tulus dan bertanggunjawab kepada semata-mata prosedur bagi mengatasi masalah dalam mengawal masyarakat. Sesetengah sarjana percaya bahawa masalah rasuah berpunca daripada keruntuhan moral yang menguasai tingkah laku golongan pentadbir elit. Kertas kerja ini mengkaji beberapa idea sarjana terpilih bagi memahami hubungan antara kemodenan dan tadbir urus. Kajian menyimpulkan bahawa perlunya menilai semula perkara moral dalam memahami tadbir urus dan bukan sekadar memikirkan penstrukturan semula prosedur undang-undang dan pentadbiran. Terdapat juga keperluan bagi menilai semula secara serius berkenaan tabiat masalah moral hari ini dan kesannya yang terpendam dalam tadbir urus.Kata Kunci: Tadbir urus, Kemodenan, Krisis Komodenan, Kemodenan dan moral, Masalah tadbir urus.

journal of islam in asia

The Crisis of Governance and Modernity: Exploring its Nature from a Moral Perspective (Krisis Tadbir Urus dan Kemodenan: Menelusuri Tabiatnya daripada Perspektif Moral)