The idea of accountability is not new. It was there in the study of political science and financial accounting for ages. However, recently, the concept has received prominence in public administration and government progress.
The central idea of accountability is as follows:
Every time a principal (citizens) hands over the decision-making power to an agent (government), there should be a mechanism for holding the agent accountable for their decisions. In simple terms, accountability is a possible way of limiting the misuse of power and ensuring transparency.
Accountability comprises diverse forms based on the actors. It includes:
- Citizens–politicians
- Politicians–bureaucrats
- Judges–citizens
Notably, all of them aim to protect different values and include varying challenges. Moreover, accountability mechanisms can be formal. That is, it can be top-down processes, such as elections, hearings, consultations. It can also be bottom-up strategies such as participatory budgeting, social mobilisation, and citizen monitoring. It is essential to understand that mechanisms to ensure accountability must accompany efforts to empower citizens.
Need for Effective Mechanisms
To hold the government to account or map the government progress, citizens need effective mechanisms. These include direct means such as:
- Citizens’ scorecards on government progress
- Organisations representing citizens’ opinions in engagement with decision-makers
- Elections, parliaments and ombudspersons at both local and national levels
World leaders agree that we could achieve better accountability only by working across these levels. Also, reforms that benefit the poor require changes in the following three distinct areas:
- Within state
- Within society
- At state-society interface
Association between citizens and states that shapes governance outcomes are complex. To effectively map government progress through accountability mechanisms, citizens need more excellent political knowledge and awareness of rights. It is the first step for the citizens towards claiming rights and acting for themselves.
Making Accountability Mechanisms Effective
The building of accountability mechanisms is part of societal progress and development. The competence of such agents demands suitable feedback loops that help regulate, adapt and effectively achieve goals. More importantly, accountability strategies should accompany communication strategies.
Engaging in associations is considered to be an effective way of strengthening notions of citizenship and citizen engagement. It can create more responsive states. That said, for social accountability mechanisms to be effective, some amount of state support is essential.
Accountability mechanism must include directing engagement of individuals and groups with governments and other duty-bearers. Citizens can engage through participation in democratic political processes. Moreover, it should involve engagements service providers through advocacy.
The effectiveness of accountability mechanisms largely depends on citizens’ awareness of rights and choices. It also depends on their capacity and willingness to engage and use opinions. Citizens can voice their opinions through political cycles, civil society mobilisation or participation in monitoring methods. Once citizens take an active role, any independent entity could deftly map government progress with accountability mechanisms.
Conclusion
There are several reasons why accountability mechanisms fail. A primary reason for accountability failure is the control of public institutions by powerful and resourceful groups. Another strong reason is the lack of representation of poor and powerless people.
It is axiomatic that the concept of accountability is critical for political and business actors to respond to the needs of the poor. Shifting relations between state, civil society, and market agents both generate and limit new accountability structures. It gets accelerated with the advent of new power dynamics. Hence, the ability to demand accountability and the willingness to respond depends on power-relations between the state, civil society and market agents.
Comments