Accountability to the people

The essential fact is that this Committee is a Committee of the House responsible to the House as a whole and is not the battleground for party faction…I believe it is true to say that the authority of the Committee is greatly enhanced by its unanimous character and I hope complete objectivity of its report. It is fair to say that many Honourable Members of both parties have made great endeavours and have sometimes sacrificed personal views to ensure that this shall be so. 

Sir Harold Wilson, late British Prime Minister &

Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee

 

As I was about to put together my article for today’s publication, three news items caught my eyes. The first relates to a statement from the Opposition Leader David Granger that: citizens need to know what is happening with their hard-earned tax dollars; accountability makes the system work and will make people more confident in their government; and an accountable government will become a good government.

20131111watchMr. Granger was referring to the difficulty in obtaining information on some government projects and programmes, which in his view should have been made readily available. He cited the Government Information Agency which did not receive any funding through the National Budget but which continues to function normally. He suggested that there must be another source of funding which needs to be investigated. Mr. Granger also referred to the Marriott Project which in his view is not in the best interest of the average Guyanese.

The second item relates to the announcement by the Opposition parties that they were still awaiting to hear from the Government on talks for next year’s budget. APNU has indicated that it was preparing to mount a legal challenge over government spending not approved by the National Assembly, even if it has to take the matter to the Caribbean Court of Justice.  It will be recalled that the acting Chief Justice had made a preliminary ruling on the reduction of the budget for some entities, but it is not clear when a final ruling will be made.

The third item relates to a statement attributable Mr. Carl Greenidge, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, about the conflict of interest that exists between the Ministry of Finance and the Audit Office, and the disagreement between Government and Opposition members of the Committee on the matter. Mr. Greenidge had written to the professional bodies requesting guidance. The Government’s side reacted by issuing a separate letter to these bodies in defence of the existing arrangement. All does not therefore seem well with this parliamentary body responsible for overseeing the public accountability processes in this country. Members of the PAC may wish to reflect on the above quoted words of the late Sir Harold Wilson as they seek to discharge their responsibilities to the nation.

 

Accountability as an obligation

Various definitions abound of what accountability is all about. In general terms, an accountability relationship exists where the responsibility for a course of action or the management of resources is delegated from one person to another, the latter having an obligation to account to the former in a timely manner in relation to that responsibility. For example, a company is owned by its shareholders who appoint managers to oversee its day-to-day operations. The managers are required to give an account of their stewardship usually at the annual general meeting of shareholders. If a proper account is given, and the company does well, the managers will secure a renewed tenure of office. If not, they are more than likely to be replaced. The same principle applies to the State where the citizens of the country are the owners while the government carries out the stewardship function.

Accountability becomes enriched if it is seen as a moral act and a personal responsibility, given voluntarily rather than being imposed. Imposed accountability is likely to result in minimum compliance or in some cases non-compliance. The Guyana history on the subject is a case in point. One just has to peruse the status of financial reporting and audit in respect of the entities for which the Audit Office has audit responsibility to confirm this.

At the organizational level, a more elaborate definition provided by the United Nations is that accountability is the obligation to be answerable for all decisions made and actions taken, and to be responsible for honouring commitments, without qualification or exception. It includes:

●  achieving objectives and high quality results in a timely and cost-effective manner, in fully implementing and delivering on all mandates approved by UN inter-governmental bodies/other subsidiary organs in compliance with all resolutions, regulations, rules and ethical standards;

truthful, objective, accurate and timely reporting on performance results;

responsible stewardship of funds/resources; and

all aspects of performance, including a clearly defined system of rewards and sanctions; and with due recognition to the important role of oversight bodies and in full compliance with accepted recommendations.

 

Public accountability and transparency

Public accountability is that which prevails in the public sector. It is far more rigorous than private sector accountability in that public officials, including ministers, are required to explain their actions publicly and to allow their performance to be subject to independent scrutiny and reporting. Normanton (1966) considers it “a statutory obligation to provide, for independent and impartial observers holding the right of reporting their findings at the highest levels in the state, any available information about financial administration which they may request”.

Former US Ambassador James Michel (1991) asserts that every system of public accountability should embrace the following basic elements:

 

Every act or action is done openly according to law and prudent judgment;

Every actor is responsible for his or her action;

Every act is documented and reported publicly;

Every act or action is subject to independent and professional non-partisan audit review, and public reporting of the results; and

Where the review shows that purposeful error has been made, prompt corrective action, including punishment, where appropriate, is taken.

Michel argues that accountability inspires confidence and faith in the form of government. A lack of accountability leads to inefficiencies, corruption, disillusionment, and ultimately high political cost for the government officials as well as the cost to the public they are supposed to serve. He concludes that:

 

Our democracy here in the United States over the last two centuries has weathered the storms of war, economic depression, crime, drugs, corruption and scandal. It survives because we make our mistakes openly, we learn from them and we correct them openly. Our government and its officials are politically, financially and legally accountable. 

I might add that democracy and accountability are the twin sides of the same coin. Democracy leads to accountability which in turn leads to development. A lack of democracy will almost inevitably lead to a lack of accountability because of the absence of stewardship responsibility and answerability. This in turn will result in a stagnation of development. Again, one can point to Guyana’s experience since Independence to confirm the accuracy of this statement.

In any democracy, governments are elected periodically to manage the affairs of the State and are accountable to the public through their elected representatives in the Legislature. If the government does well in discharging its stewardship and fiduciary responsibilities, it is likely to secure a new tenure of office. If it fails to do so, citizens are likely to exercise their power as part of the democratic process. Oliver (1991 asserts that the public interest is the ultimate legitimating justification for government, and accountability should promote this.

In a December 2002 report, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada considers accountability as “a relationship based on obligations to demonstrate, review, and take responsibility for performance, both the results achieved in the light of agreed expectations and the means used”. The report outlines five principles for effective accountability: clear roles and responsibilities; clear performance expectations; a balance of expectations with capacities; credible reporting; and reasonable review of performance, with adjustment where necessary.

The report goes on to state that accountability would be strengthened if Parliament plays a more active role in scrutinizing the government’s plans and performance expectations, and comparing them with the performance reported later by the government. Accountability can serve three purposes: (a) to control against the abuse or misuse of power; (b) to provide assurance that activities were carried out as intended and with due regard to fairness, propriety, and good stewardship; and (c) to encourage improved performance of programmes and policies, through reporting on and learning from what works and what does not.

The report also suggests that transparency is essential to accountability since it makes it easier for those outside government to monitor and challenge the government’s performance for consistency with policy intentions, for fairness, for propriety, and for good stewardship. The prospect of scrutiny also helps keep ministers and managers of public programmes attuned to the defensibility of their actions. Transparency and accountability mean stronger institutions and more credible government.

In the most rigorous analysis of the subject, I believe that an effective system of public accountability requires a modern system of public financial management out of which is derived periodic financial reporting that is reflective of international best practice. This must be supported by: (a) an independent, competent and credible Legislative Audit serving the public interest; (b) a competent and impartial Parliamentary committee with responsibility for monitoring the public accountability processes; and (c) a responsive and enlightened government that is meaningfully committed and willing to act on agreed recommendations for improvement. These are indispensable to the maintenance of the highest standards of public accountability.

 

To be continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.