Accountability has multiple meanings but in its broadest sense, accountability implies responsive governance. By enabling the "governed" to hold representatives responsible for the outcome of their decisions, accountability ensures responsiveness of the governors to the governed. As such, in most (democratic) governance structures, accountability mechanisms are in place to assure governors to be responsive to the governed. These mechanisms generally temper gross opportunism and prevent usurpation of power and authority from the governed. The array of devices to assure responsive or accountable governance is given below.
One set of mechanisms is based on the creation of rules designed to "control" or regulate the behavior of governing institutions. These rules can be substantive, setting forth principles and limits that define the mandate of a particular set of governing officials (be it staff or board members). Alternatively, these rules can be procedural, requiring a particular mode of decision-making that gives individuals and groups affected by the decisions meaningful input into them. This implies the need for:
A second mode of ex post mechanisms allows the governed to respond, review and/or reject governance decisions already taken. For elected officials and many of the bureaucratic officials they appoint and control, the mechanism used is typically elections. For non-elected officials, such as judges, the mechanism may be requirements that they provide a public rationale and justification for their decisions, often referred to as giving reasons requirements'. These permit regular response and critique by those who are subject to decisions. Other ex post accountability devices includes monitoring, auditing and independent review whether the governors have acted within their mandate and consistent with agreed upon principles. In sum, within this context, accountability usually manifests itself through periodic elections, the furnishing of timely updates to the stakeholders and being answerable to the members of the organization and flow of information, setting out the context and rationales of the decision making process, that enables those affected to review and respond; a review and monitoring process that enables handling of complaints or assures responsiveness from staff and representatives.
Both the ex ante and the ex post procedural requirements typically include what is meant by transparency'. Policy-makers must be visible and accessible to the governed in a way that allows a meaningful response. Yet, enhancing transparency alone to address accountability may privilege form over substance and hence fail. Joseph Weiler for instance observes interestingly with regard to the charges of a democratic deficit within the EU: Transparency and access to documents are often invoked as a possible remedy to this issue. But if you do not know what is going on, which documents will you ask to see?' In sum, transparency without public education and context may not be able to address the underlying problems it aims to solve.
| 3.6.2 Accountability | 3.6.2.2 Accountability and ICANN |
© 2001 NAISProject.org
Privacy Policy
webmaster@naisproject.org