Need for citizen-led accountability

Scholars and practitioners widely believe that accountability is a cornerstone of good governance. But navigating through the myriads of accountability is a difficult task owing to its amorphous nature and diverse typologies. Broadly, accountability is when an organisation or individual is subjected to another institution’s or person’s oversight and made to justify the actions and decisions taken.

For scholars like Andreas Schedler, accountability must have two dimensions: answerability and enforcement. By this he implies that accountability is attained if it makes public officials answerable by “obliging (them) to respond to nasty questions”. By enforcement he means answering questions is not enough, rather punishment or reward is based on the response.

Meanwhile, Guillermo O’Donnell attempts to explain typologies. He describes two basic types of accountability. Horizontal accountability is when a government body holds another accountable. Alternatively, in vertical accountability citizens, mass media and civil society seek to enforce standards of good performance.

While refining the idea, Anne Goetz and Rob Jenkins idealised ‘hybrid accountability’ which features citizens’ involvement in accountability. Recently, more comprehensive frameworks of accountability have been developed around citizens’ involvement in accountability. One framework, “Marginalized Groups in ICT-enabled Governance”, by John Driscoll, Larsen, Dritan and Aida Ciro points at three pillars that are necessary for effective accountability: participation, transparency and feedback/monitoring. The framework urges enhancing participation of citizen civic organisations; improving transparency by giving access to information; and allowing public monitoring of public money spending.

Globally, similar models of direct public participation in vertical accountability has given good results. Some include Porto Alegre’s Participatory Budgeting and Citizen Oversight Initiative in Mexico. Closest in context is India’s Junsunvai (Public Hearings) led by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghthan (MKSS).

Pakistan has much to learn from these initiatives. Pakistanis still remember Shehbaz Sharif’s speeches where he pledged to “tear apart Zardari and bring the stolen money” and Zardari’s vow to hold Nawaz Sharif accountable. None has happened yet. People are also oblivious about the delay in execution and high spending in Peshawar BRT with no word from the government. This has given rise to the question: why is accountability system not effective as desired?

Possibly because civic engagement is lacking in the process. The UN’s Convention against Corruption calls for “involvement of individuals and groups outside the public sector, such as civil society, NGOs and community-based organisations” for effective accountability. But there is no niche available in the country for these to engage in the process of accountability. Media, however, seems engaged but transparency is missing because of limited access to information. Most media talks revolve around information from “informed sources” with no specific reference. Masses rely on speculative information spread by the mass media without a clue to what is happening.

As the PTI had pledged in its election manifesto to ensure accountability, it is time the incumbent government garners efforts to remove the misconceptions around accountability and show it means something good and productive. It can be done by creating multiple-tiered civic platforms for accountability.

Initiatives like the Citizen Portal are necessary and a step in the right direction. But they should be complemented by other initiatives, which are more civic and citizen-led. The process needs to be grounded in broad-based participation as it is essential to reach out to the widely distributed majority and to show them that their participation also matters.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 5^th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.