من «المحاكمة» إلى «الحوكمة»... ليست مجرد مفارقة لغوية، بل تحوّل جوهري في الوعي المؤسسي ومنهجية الإدارة الجامعية. ففي بعض البيئات، ما زال الخوف من الاجتهاد والتردد في المبادرة يطغى على المشهد، حيث يُنظر إلى الخطأ كخطر، والرأي كعبء، والصمت كملاذ آمن. وفي مثل هذا المناخ، تتراجع الثقة، وتخبو روح الابتكار. أما حين تسود الحوكمة، يتغيّر المشهد؛ فالنظام لا يكون أداة قمع، بل إطارًا للعدالة، والمساءلة تتحوّل من وسيلة للعقاب إلى أداة للتطوير، والمبادرة تُصبح قيمة يُحتفى بها، لا مغامرة يُتوجّس منها.
يشهد العالم سباقًا متسارعًا نحو التميّز في قطاع التعليم الجامعي، تقوده الشفافية والمساءلة والتمكين، لا الرتابة أو المركزية. ولم يعد مقبولًا أن تُدار الجامعات بأنماط فردية تستند إلى التأويل، أو تُحاسب العاملين بناءً على الانطباعات، بينما تتجه الأنظمة الجامعية المتقدمة نحو مؤشرات أداء معلنة، وهياكل حوكمة مستقلة، وثقافة مؤسسية تحتفي بالمبادرة الواعية، لا تُقيدها بالخوف ولا تُصادرها بالحذر.
وإذا شهدت بعض البيئات الجامعية فتورًا في المبادرات، فليس ذلك لغياب الكفاءات، بل لافتقاد الأمان المؤسسي الذي تمنحه الحوكمة. فعندما يُنظر إلى الاجتهاد بعين التحفّظ لا بعين الاحتضان، وتُصبح النية الحسنة حجة للتثبيط بدلًا من التمكين، تتراجع الثقة وتضيق المساحة أمام الإبداع. وما زالت بعض الممارسات تُعيق الحراك المؤسسي؛ كالتردد في منح الصلاحيات، أو غموض معايير التقييم، أو التعامل مع المبادرات بروح الحذر بدلًا من التشجيع. وهنا تبرز الحوكمة بوصفها المنظومة القادرة على تحويل تلك الممارسات من أدوات تقويض إلى أدوات دعم، حين تُبنى القرارات على قيم العدالة والوضوح، ويشعر الجميع بأمان مهني ينعكس على جودة الأداء ونمو الثقة المؤسسية.
وفي بعض الأوساط الجامعية، تتردد مقولات مثل: «من خاف سلم»، و«قلنا ولم يُؤخذ برأينا»، كمؤشرات على غياب الإصغاء، وتراجع الثقة، وتحوّل الصمت إلى وسيلة للنجاة. وهنا تتجلى أهمية الحوكمة الرشيدة في بناء بيئة تُعزز الثقة، وتُكرّس ثقافة الإصغاء والتقدير، لا التوجّس والانكماش. فالحوكمة لا تقتصر على اللوائح، بل هي منظومة تمكين تُحيل الرأي إلى قيمة، والمبادرة إلى حق، والمساءلة إلى مسار تطوير.
وقد شكّل نظام الجامعات الجديد في المملكة نقلة نوعية في هذا الاتجاه، بمنحه الجامعات استقلالية منضبطة في الجوانب الإدارية والأكاديمية والمالية، وتوسيع نطاق صلاحياتها التشغيلية ضمن إطار مؤسسي يربط الصلاحيات بالمساءلة، ويُرسّخ مبادئ الشفافية والحوكمة. وهو انسجام واضح مع رؤية السعودية 2030 التي تهدف إلى تمكين الجامعات، وتحريرها من البيروقراطية، وتعزيز تنافسيتها محليًا ودوليًا.
وقد بدأت بعض الجامعات السعودية بالفعل في تشكيل وتفعيل مجالس الأمناء، واعتماد مؤشرات أداء، ونشر تقاريرها السنوية، إلا أن التفاوت لا يزال قائمًا بين جامعة وأخرى، بل وبين كليات داخل الجامعة الواحدة. وبعض القرارات لا تزال تُتخذ بردود أفعال أو اجتهادات فردية، مما يُربك الأداء، ويُضعف الثقة، ويُشوش على الكفاءات.
وفي بعض البيئات، تتغيّر المسارات بتغيّر القيادات، لا بناءً على مراجعة مؤسسية مدروسة، بل لتباين في المرجعيات والاهتمامات. وقد تتوقف مبادرات ناجحة فقط لأنها لا تنسجم مع التخصص الأكاديمي أو التوجه الشخصي. وهنا تتجلى الحوكمة كضمانة لاستقرار التوجهات، وحماية للتراكم المؤسسي، وتحييد للقرارات عن التأثيرات الفردية، دون أن تعيق مرونة القيادة أو تُقيد فرص التطوير.
فالجامعة التي تُدار برؤية مؤسسية متزنة، تستند إلى الأنظمة، وتسترشد بالمؤشرات، وتُشجع المبادرات وتحمي أصحابها، هي الجامعة التي تُنتج المعرفة، وتُخرّج القادة، وتُسهم في بناء كوادر وطنية مؤهلة، تُعزز التنافسية وتدعم اقتصادًا مستدامًا. أما الجامعات التي تفتقر إلى مرجعية مؤسسية واضحة، وتتأثر قراراتها بالاجتهادات الفردية، وتضيق بالآراء المختلفة، فقد يصعب عليها ترسيخ الاستقرار أو تحقيق رسالتها بكفاءة.
فالتاريخ لا يخلّد الجامعات التي ترددت خشية الخطأ، بل يحتفي بتلك التي جعلت من كل تجربة درسًا، ومن كل نظام أساسًا للتطوير، ومن كل مبادرة لبنة في بناء المستقبل.
مصلح الحارثي
الجامعات... من المحاكمة إلى الحوكمة
8 أغسطس 2025 - 00:09
|
آخر تحديث 8 أغسطس 2025 - 00:09
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
From "Trial" to "Governance"... it is not just a linguistic paradox, but a fundamental transformation in institutional awareness and university management methodology. In some environments, the fear of initiative and hesitation to act still dominate the scene, where mistakes are viewed as dangers, opinions as burdens, and silence as a safe haven. In such an atmosphere, trust diminishes, and the spirit of innovation fades. However, when governance prevails, the scene changes; the system becomes not a tool of oppression, but a framework for justice, accountability shifts from a means of punishment to a tool for development, and initiative becomes a value celebrated, not a venture to be wary of.
The world is witnessing a rapid race towards excellence in higher education, driven by transparency, accountability, and empowerment, rather than monotony or centralization. It is no longer acceptable for universities to be managed by individual patterns based on interpretation, or for employees to be held accountable based on impressions, while advanced university systems move towards announced performance indicators, independent governance structures, and an institutional culture that celebrates conscious initiative, unbound by fear or stifled by caution.
If some university environments experience a lack of initiatives, it is not due to a lack of competencies, but rather the absence of the institutional security that governance provides. When diligence is viewed with reservation rather than embrace, and good intentions become an excuse for discouragement instead of empowerment, trust diminishes and the space for creativity shrinks. Some practices still hinder institutional movement; such as hesitation in granting authorities, ambiguity in evaluation criteria, or treating initiatives with caution instead of encouragement. Here, governance emerges as the system capable of transforming those practices from tools of undermining to tools of support, when decisions are based on values of justice and clarity, and everyone feels a professional security that reflects on performance quality and the growth of institutional trust.
In some academic circles, phrases like: "He who fears, surrenders," and "We said, but our opinion was not taken into account," echo as indicators of a lack of listening, declining trust, and silence turning into a means of survival. Here, the importance of good governance becomes evident in building an environment that enhances trust and establishes a culture of listening and appreciation, rather than wariness and contraction. Governance is not limited to regulations; it is an enabling system that transforms opinion into value, initiative into a right, and accountability into a path of development.
The new university system in the Kingdom has represented a qualitative leap in this direction, granting universities disciplined autonomy in administrative, academic, and financial aspects, and expanding their operational powers within a framework that links authority with accountability, and reinforces principles of transparency and governance. This aligns clearly with Saudi Vision 2030, which aims to empower universities, liberate them from bureaucracy, and enhance their competitiveness both locally and internationally.
Some Saudi universities have already begun to form and activate boards of trustees, adopt performance indicators, and publish their annual reports, yet disparities still exist between one university and another, and even among colleges within the same university. Some decisions are still made in response to reactions or individual interpretations, which confuses performance, weakens trust, and disrupts competencies.
In some environments, paths change with shifts in leadership, not based on a well-studied institutional review, but due to variations in references and interests. Successful initiatives may halt simply because they do not align with academic specialties or personal inclinations. Here, governance manifests as a guarantee for the stability of directions, protection for institutional accumulation, and neutrality of decisions from individual influences, without hindering leadership flexibility or restricting development opportunities.
A university managed with a balanced institutional vision, based on systems, guided by indicators, and encouraging initiatives while protecting their owners, is the university that produces knowledge, graduates leaders, and contributes to building qualified national cadres that enhance competitiveness and support a sustainable economy. Conversely, universities that lack a clear institutional reference, whose decisions are influenced by individual interpretations, and that narrow the space for differing opinions, may find it difficult to establish stability or achieve their mission efficiently.
History does not commemorate universities that hesitated for fear of making mistakes, but rather celebrates those that turned every experience into a lesson, every system into a foundation for development, and every initiative into a building block for the future.
The world is witnessing a rapid race towards excellence in higher education, driven by transparency, accountability, and empowerment, rather than monotony or centralization. It is no longer acceptable for universities to be managed by individual patterns based on interpretation, or for employees to be held accountable based on impressions, while advanced university systems move towards announced performance indicators, independent governance structures, and an institutional culture that celebrates conscious initiative, unbound by fear or stifled by caution.
If some university environments experience a lack of initiatives, it is not due to a lack of competencies, but rather the absence of the institutional security that governance provides. When diligence is viewed with reservation rather than embrace, and good intentions become an excuse for discouragement instead of empowerment, trust diminishes and the space for creativity shrinks. Some practices still hinder institutional movement; such as hesitation in granting authorities, ambiguity in evaluation criteria, or treating initiatives with caution instead of encouragement. Here, governance emerges as the system capable of transforming those practices from tools of undermining to tools of support, when decisions are based on values of justice and clarity, and everyone feels a professional security that reflects on performance quality and the growth of institutional trust.
In some academic circles, phrases like: "He who fears, surrenders," and "We said, but our opinion was not taken into account," echo as indicators of a lack of listening, declining trust, and silence turning into a means of survival. Here, the importance of good governance becomes evident in building an environment that enhances trust and establishes a culture of listening and appreciation, rather than wariness and contraction. Governance is not limited to regulations; it is an enabling system that transforms opinion into value, initiative into a right, and accountability into a path of development.
The new university system in the Kingdom has represented a qualitative leap in this direction, granting universities disciplined autonomy in administrative, academic, and financial aspects, and expanding their operational powers within a framework that links authority with accountability, and reinforces principles of transparency and governance. This aligns clearly with Saudi Vision 2030, which aims to empower universities, liberate them from bureaucracy, and enhance their competitiveness both locally and internationally.
Some Saudi universities have already begun to form and activate boards of trustees, adopt performance indicators, and publish their annual reports, yet disparities still exist between one university and another, and even among colleges within the same university. Some decisions are still made in response to reactions or individual interpretations, which confuses performance, weakens trust, and disrupts competencies.
In some environments, paths change with shifts in leadership, not based on a well-studied institutional review, but due to variations in references and interests. Successful initiatives may halt simply because they do not align with academic specialties or personal inclinations. Here, governance manifests as a guarantee for the stability of directions, protection for institutional accumulation, and neutrality of decisions from individual influences, without hindering leadership flexibility or restricting development opportunities.
A university managed with a balanced institutional vision, based on systems, guided by indicators, and encouraging initiatives while protecting their owners, is the university that produces knowledge, graduates leaders, and contributes to building qualified national cadres that enhance competitiveness and support a sustainable economy. Conversely, universities that lack a clear institutional reference, whose decisions are influenced by individual interpretations, and that narrow the space for differing opinions, may find it difficult to establish stability or achieve their mission efficiently.
History does not commemorate universities that hesitated for fear of making mistakes, but rather celebrates those that turned every experience into a lesson, every system into a foundation for development, and every initiative into a building block for the future.


