The empowerment and accountability agenda have emerged as the academic and development community’s response to the increasing recognition that traditional approaches to promoting voice and accountability have failed to bring about sustained policy change and improved development outcomes. It is argued that these traditional approaches were too focused on strengthening state institutions and/or creating spaces for public consultation, without addressing power relations between citizens and the state, and the interactions and interfaces between them.
Whilst increasing attention is now given to strengthening the capacity of ordinary citizens to participate directly in policy making, it is generally recognised that empowerment does not work on its own: an empowered citizen requires capable and responsive decision makers whom they can hold to account. Accountability is therefore a precondition for effective empowerment. Conversely, empowerment is also understood as a precondition for accountability: a degree of empowerment is needed if people are to participate and engage meaningfully with decision makers and development processes. Thus, the underlying logic of empowerment and accountability approaches is that where people have a stronger voice, they are more able to influence decisions about policies and the distribution of resources and are more able to hold officials to account for their actions.
One of the key attributes of good governance and efficient delegation is accountability; when citizens empower a government to represent them, it is natural and expedient for hem to be curious about what the government does with the resources they have been empowered with. They want to :now how well these resources have been utilised, through what process, under whose supervision and more importantly, whether there was sufficient value-for-resources obtained.
Accountability is one of the key best practices in people oriented governance; and since most government activities ally around service delivery, it is reasonable to consider the process in governance a threat to development, when it cannot be properly meet with the needs of the governed. When public resources fail to reach the people adequately, or hose entrusted with the management are reluctant in sporting such activities, it naturally severs the relationship between them.
From our observations, Nigeria is burdened with one of the world’ most unaccountable governments, though current administration have been making effort to address this situation, this is making corruption a tricky itch to scratch and s made it more difficult for a good relationship to exist between the government and citizens. Thus the idea and need develop efficient and effective tools in holding governments accountable emanates from this fate; such tools as exemplified the past, will commit the Nigerian government by any means possible to consider it obligatory to provide accurate, timely and clear reports of her activities, especially in public procurement which is blamed for about 70% of corruption in public offices.
THE CONCEPT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNANCE
Carmen Malena, Reiner Foster and Janmejay Singh in their collective research on ‘Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice’ compiled for the December 2004 Role of Civil Society i Holding Government Accountable Perspective from the World Bank, they described accountability as obligation of power-holders to account for or take responsibility for their actions. power-holders imply those who hold political, financial, or other forms of power both in public, private and the non-profit sectors.
From the above definitions, public office holders, that is – government officials and bureaucrats are accountable for two major areas: 1), their conduct in the day-to-day affairs of governance and 2), their performances in their routine activities. The conduct of public officers should in essence reflect an obedience of the law.
However, it is important to note that successful mechanisms ran by most developed democracies, ensures that the approach is initiated by direct (not indirect) participation of citizens and/or CSOs; and also provides a free stage for other sectors like the private sector and government to play. Researches have shown that most often the success of the mechanism depends on the direct participation of the public, an approach that relies on civic engagement, which comprises of citizen-driven measures.
It will be important to address the questions below;
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A GOVERNMENT TO BE ACCOUNTABLE?
In very simple terms, a government could be said to be accountable when it can give the true account of its activities to the people or nation which it was set up to serve. This means that when a government, through the relevant and constitutionally approved channels, regularly informs her people exactly what it was able to gather as resources, how it planned to use them how it eventually used such resources and the results of the process, then it can be referred to as an accountable government. The process could range from the procurement of goods, services or works, to its review of vital legal documents or even its civil service policies. Whatever the process or activity is; an accountable government is one that always tells its people what is going on so as not to keep the people in the dark.
A more insightful and comprehensive definition will serve to describe the term accountability as it applies to position of readership. Accountability is the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences. In governance it is commonly described in terms of an account-giving relationship where one party (the government) is expected to be accountable to the other (the people).
The government is obliged to inform the people about her actions and decisions (whether past or future), to rationalize them and to be faced with rejection, criticisms or disapproval in the case of eventual misconduct. However, this is professionally termed political accountability and usually encompasses the civil servants and politicians being accountable to the public and legislative bodies. Another definition holds that accountability is “the obligation of power- holders to account for or take responsibility of their actions in both their conduct (by obeying the rule and not abuse their power) and their performance (by serving the public interest in an efficient, effective and fair manner).
WHAT COULD MAKE A GOVERNMENT UNACCOUNTABLE?
It is also very important to know some of the main reasons why a government might not be accountable to the citizens. This information can help the civil society and other stakeholders to tackle the issue from the root. The point listed here are not exhaustive.
• Where the government operates a non disclosure policy
• Absence of laws to guarantee good governance, transparency and accountability
Lack of regard for the people and their power in a democracy
•Where the people are unable to access government budget
•Shady dealings and sharp practices in government expenditure and activities
•Poor awareness and advocacy for the implementation of relevant laws
•Disregard for budgetary provisions
•Fear of indictment by the opposition
•Indifference towards and gross negligence of the rule of law
•Inability of the people to device and utilize feasible means to hold the government accountable.
HY IS IT NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE HELD CCOUNTABLE?
Sovereignty belongs to the people and those in government e voted in by the people to primarily take care of their welfare and security. The government manage public sources on behalf of the people, as such, the government own the people a duty to explain to them how their collective wealth, is being spent and where the people are not satisfied with the political leadership, such leaders will be voted out during elections.
The government needs to be held accountable so that the, people can ensure that they are meeting up with their responsibilities efficiently and effectively. This is done to curtail the excesses of public office holders, ensure that proper communication exists between the people and their government; evaluate the performance of the government hence, help the people make informed decisions on their votes, and choice of representatives; establish when the need for a change of approach arises, among other reasons.
In addition, it is very remarkable to note that being able to hold the government accountable helps the citizens to participate in their governance – a key prerequisite in a true democracy and leadership. William Reubens remarks on governance crisis best highlights the danger of the failure to enable citizens participate in their governance; he wrote: “The smaller the extent to which citizens feel represented and received by public Institutions (the result of inefficient accountability of such institutions), the larger the governance crisis. The greater the degree of separation between the actions or rulers and the citizen’s expectations and control over rulers’ actions, the greater the governance crisis.”
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE IN MAKING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE?
Conventionally (also ideally), it is the responsibility of the supreme book of law, its interpreters and its enforcers to compel the government and public officers to submit to accountability; this is the situation in most civilised societies. But you must have noted that the term ideally was used! ideally because this is what the situation should be like; unfortunately, this ideal situation is not obtainable most times in Nigeria (and in some other nations). In this country, it is either the arm of the law is too short to reach some people or its grip is to lose to keep others grounded. However, in recent times, due to continues advocacy, vulture-match monitoring of government activities and persistent reportage of findings even in the conventional media; and engagement of relevant bodies, organisations and independent crusaders by CSOs the light is beginning to shine even before the end of the tunnel.
Administratively, the legislatives bodies like the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly are constitutionally established to ensure that both the government and the public are accountable through lawmaking and oversight among other functions. These bodies are in turn held accountable by the provisions of the laws as enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. For instance, the Public Procurement Acts 2007 has very clear provisions that borders on accountability in the procurements carried out by the government. These bodies identified above can check the activities of public officers and power-holders using corrective measures like impeachment, coercing defaulters to resign, imprisonment and/or payment of fines/ ceasing assets, depending on the severity of the case.
For strategic purposes, it is vital to mention that in a true democracy, power which include the power to ask for proper accounts from the government resides with the people. The people are the employers of the government; they are the government, they form the government and hence have all right to demand accounts of government’s activities. They have the power to give authority, just like they can also take back authority; and with this absolute power, they reserve the supreme authority and back bone to hold the government accountable hence they remain the primary party the government has to be accountable to.
WHY IS ACCOUNTABILITY IMPORTANT IN PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY?
We live in an age of public accountability in which governments in new and old democracies are under increasing media and public scrutiny. There is growing demand that governments, public institutions and officials grant access to information concerning controversial actions and decisions. International transparency organizations regularly monitor levels of corruption and social responsibilities efforts of both public and private actors in different parts of the world.
Continuous evaluation of effectiveness of public institutions and officials ensure that they are performing optimally, providing value for money in the provision of public services, instilling confidence in the government and being responsive to the community they are meant to be serving.
In the context of local government, accountability becomes critical since local authorities are closer to the citizens and the central governments channel services to the citizens through them. Their performance or lack of it therefore impacts directly on the central government. Many services such as education, health and social services are delivered at the local level and affect the poor, hence stronger accountability and increased oversight provides a better institutional framework for effective delivery of such public services aiming at reducing poverty and promoting shared growth.
CITIZENS MUST HOLD GOVERNMENTTO ACCOUNT
The obligation of an authority to explain how it is carrying out its responsibilities is called public accountability, It means that governments will publicly explain what they intend to achieve, for whom, and why; what costs and risks would flow from the intentions, for whom, and why; the performance standards for what they intend and for the agencies they oversee; and what resulted. To make society work properly, citizens must hold government to account (i.e. extract the needed accountings).
Holding to account is a powerful force. The key is public explanation. This produces a beneficial self-regulating influence on officials. When their intentions and reasons are known from public validation of what they say, they become subject to the “Dracula Test” meaning that if true intentions are judged by citizens to be against the public interest, they tend to self-destruction.
Holding to account also gives us useful information that we would not otherwise have. George Washington put it succinctly in 1796: “I am sure the mass of citizens in these United States mean well, and I firmly believe they will always act well, whenever they can obtain a right understanding of matters
FORMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY: VERTICAL, HORIZONTAL AND
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
There are various forms of official accountability mechanisms.
Vertical accountability measures allow citizens to hold institutions and states to account, whether through elections or through social mobilisation or advocacy and lobbying. More recently, citizens have begun to engage directly with the state and service providers through budgeting, monitoring and other oversight processes in what are variously referred to as ‘direct’, ‘social’ or ‘demand-side’ accountability processes.
Vertical accountability refers to direct engagement by individuals and groups with governments and other duty- bearers through participation in democratic political processes, and with service providers through advocacy and oversight channels and mechanisms. The effectiveness of vertical accountability mechanisms thus depends on citizens’ awareness of rights and choice, and their ability and readiness to engage and use voice, either through political cycles or through civil society mobilisation and involvement in monitoring mechanisms.
Horizontal accountability mechanisms involve state entities monitoring and demanding answers from (and sometimes sanctioning) other state entities. This means that state institutions engaging in mutual scrutiny to prevent abuses of office. This can take a variety of forms. For example, judicial institutions can review the constitutionality of executive decisions; the public audit function can monitor public spending; parliamentary committees can provide government oversight; and human rights commissions can investigate citizens’ complaints.
