Accountability

According to the U4 Corruption glossary, 'accountability' denotes a relationship between a bearer of a right or a legitimate claim and the agents or agencies responsible for fulfilling or respecting that right. One basic type of accountability relationship is that between a person or agency entrusted with a particular task or certain powers or resources, on the one hand, and the 'principal' on whose behalf the task is undertaken, on the other.

A duty to be accountable can be discharged in different ways, but all accountability mechanisms operate according to three principles:

• 'Transparency' requires that decisions and actions are taken openly and that sufficient information is available so that other agencies and the general public can assess whether the relevant procedures are followed, consonant with the given mandate;
• 'Answerability' means an obligation on the part of the decision-makers to justify their decisions publicly so as to substantiate that they are reasonable, rational and within their mandate;
• 'Controllability' refers to mechanisms in place to sanction actions and decisions that run counter to given mandates and procedures – often referred to as a system of checks and balances or enforcement mechanisms. The checks may take many forms, including shaming and praise. Impunity is the antonym of accountability and apportioning blame for harm done is an important component of accountability.

Democratic accountability, therefore, refers to the idea that people entrusted with political power have a duty of accountability to their electorate – both directly through elections and indirectly through institutional controls.