Accountability in Public Administration: Definition, Nature and Forms

Definition and Nature of Accountability:

The general sense of accountability is required or expected to justify actions or
decisions. This is the dictionary meaning of accountability. But in governmental affairs
particularly in public administration it has special implications and the concept is
regarded as an important part. It implies that the representatives elected by the people
must give explanations of the electorate for all these policies and actions. This is a very
important part of democracy-particularly representative form of government. This is a
very common cause that a person by whom he is elected is accountable to him or them.
This is not only a common sense affair but the very foundation of democracy.
A quite reasonable definition of the term is: “The requirement for representatives to
answer to the represented on the disposal of their powers and duties and act upon
criticisms.” The ministers are accountable to the legislature, and the members of the
legislature are accountable to the electorate. It may be explained in another way.
When a person is entrusted with a job or duty he is supposed to do it to the best of his
ability, experience, honesty and efficiency. But if he fails to satisfy his employer, the
latter can claim explanation, or the latter can ask him the cause of failure. This is called
accountability. Hence accountability means one is bound to give explanation for the
policy or work done by someone.
In Greek city-states the citizens assembled in open places and took decisions on
legislative and administrative affairs. But the citizens appointed some persons to do the
job on their behalf and, in that system, there was some sort of accountability. In other
words, the citizens could demand explanation from the officers.
The contractualist Rousseau did not directly deal with the concept of accountability. But
in his analysis of body politic and structure of government there was a concept of
sovereignty which was general will and all were accountable to the general will because
it was formed by all the able-bodied adult citizens. Everyone was legally bound by the
principles of general will. It implies that the citizens are accountable to the general will.
None could violate the general will because he was also the part of the general will.
With the progress of democracy and rapid progress of representative type of
government the accountability has earned added importance. It is chiefly due to the fact
that there is no scope of direct participation by the people in the administration. But
while people elect someone or some number of people for transaction of some job, it is
a general expectation that he or they will do the job satisfactorily. Any failure will call for
an explanation. This is accountability. The key idea of accountability is to ensure a
balance in the administrative system.
Here the word balance is used in a special sense. It means that someone is entrusted
with a job and he is supposed to do it. But if his performance fails to satisfy then he Is
required to be called for an explanation of his failure. Here lies the balance and it
constitutes the very foundation of democracy. The idea of accountability has another
meaning-it is control. Whenever one is asked to do a job, there must lie the system of
controlling the process. Long ago Aristotle raised an interesting question-quis custodiet
upsos custodcs-“Who will guard the Guardians?

Accountability and Bureaucracy:

In all state systems-developed, developing and underdeveloped-there is bureaucratic

structure. Bureaucrats are not elected by people and naturally, like ministers and
members of legislature, they are not accountable to the general public. Naturally, they
are not bound to give any explanation for their policy or work and this has posed serious
question as to the concept of balance. One is empowered to rule but to what extent that
satisfies the people that poses an important question.
The greatest shortcoming of Weberian model of bureaucracy is it remains outside the
scrutiny of the general public and ethics of public administration demands that control or
scrutiny is indispensable. For that reason there arises the idea of the control of
bureaucracy. In this connection we quote Ball and Peters: “The need for controlling
bureaucratic discretion and power is apparent in every political system.
In all forms of government-particularly in liberal democracies-need for controlling
bureaucracy has been strongly felt. In such systems there are two types of executives-
one is permanent executive-bureaucrat and the other is temporary executive-that is
minister. The ministers perform executive functions for a fixed period of time.
Normally the tenure of ministers is tied with the tenure of the legislature. But the
bureaucrats enter the job and continue up to retirement. For some misdemeanour or
wrongdoing they may be removed from service. The ministers are doubly accountable.
They are accountable to the legislature-and again, to the people. If bureaucracy is the
stamina of public administration it must be accountable to somebody.
At the beginning of the twentieth century Weber invented his model and he thought that
administration without bureaucracy is simply an impossibility. If so, it is essential to
control it through the process of ensuring accountability. Some people have suggested
that the civil servants must be inculcated that they are servants of the people or society
and their rudimentary duty is to help the amelioration of society through their services.
They are selected, trained, appointed and paid for their service to the society. Any
failure is an up-pardonable misconduct. This inculcation, through various ways, will
make them accountable. In other words, the bureaucrats must be made conscious of
their responsibility to society. It is the duty of the state to do the job.
The common people must be made conscious of their rights and duties to the society.
This type of alertness will make civil servants conscious of their responsibility to the
society. But any form of callousness on their part will make the bureaucrats forgetful of
their duty to society. This is possible through socialisation and spread of education
among the people.
It has been suggested that internal control is sometimes more effective than external
control. Internal control suggests that in the entire bureaucratic structure self-regulatory
mechanism is to required be introduced. Some of the self-regulatory mechanisms are
internal coordination, self-discipline, checks and balances, introductions of hierarchical
system etc. The administrative structure is to be so arranged that no one shall get the
opportunity to be powerful and unmindful of this responsibility or accountability to
society.
A statutory body is to be constituted to ensure the accountability. It is said that people
shall have freedom and opportunity to lodge their grievances to this body without any
fear or hurdle. This system will make the bureaucrats accountable. They will be
conscious of their responsibility to society.
After the Second World War (1939-1945) a large number of countries of Asia and Africa
got their political freedom. For the purpose of economic development the most
important and powerful machinery is administration. It is to be remembered that the
public administration will do the necessary job of development. But the work requires to
be assessed and here lies the question of accountability.
So both bureaucracy and its accountability to society are of primary importance. But in
the developing states there is a brain-storming problem. The people are not politically
educated and conscious and because of this the activities of bureaucracy remain
beyond scrutiny of the general public. The inevitable consequences are corruption,
nepotism, inefficiency in the department of public administration.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that the politicians in general and ministers in
particular are corrupt and the top bureaucrats exploit this situation in their favour-they
do not hesitate to follow corrupt practices for the gratification of their personal gains and
desires This has eroded the sphere of accountability of civil servants to the society The
ordinary people are helpless. So is the importance of accountability of bureaucracy to
society. Rather, it may be treated as the central part of bureaucratic administration.

Forms of Accountability:
When the question of accountability arises we generally mean the accountability of
bureaucrats to the general-public or society. But the experts of public administration
have made a research about its several forms or aspects and we want to throw light on
them.
It is said that first of all a civil servant is accountable to the administrative system It is
because he is a member of civil service or bureaucracy. It has certain rules and norms.
Every member of bureaucracy must show respect to these rules that is, they
scrupulously obey the rules. None can violate the rules of the organisation.
In a democracy-particularly in parliamentary system-the ministers-that is political
personalities-became the head of each ministry and beginning from top bureaucrat to
an ordinary officer-all work under the authority of the minister and the decision of the
minister is final. Of course the departmental head or secretary of the department can
give suggestions to the minister and he can even warn the minister of the possible
consequences of the policy which, the minister is going to announce. But if the minister
refuses to comply with his secretary the latter must submit to the minister. This is called
political accountability
There is another form of accountability and it is legal accountability. This is of course,
not new. Legislature enacts laws, judges give verdict on different cases.
The decisions of judges are treated as law. A civil servant must obey all these laws
which implies bureaucrat’s accountability to all sorts of laws. Specially a civil servant
has no scope to show disrespect to the law of the legislature.
In a developing or transitional society there are customs, traditions, or old habits which
are as valuable as laws of legislature or decisions of the judges. A civil servant cannot
disobey such traditions, old systems. They are also accountable to the tradition or the
traditional laws. Old customs and habits are also parts of social system. The planning of
administration and development is to be made in this background.
There is an accountability to ethics or morality which is called bureaucratic morality or,
what some public administrationists call, bureaucratic ethics. Simply stated it means
that a bureaucrat must be sincere, honest, and efficient. He should remember that his
perks come from the state exchequer which is filled up by people’s taxes. He should
remember that public money is to be properly spent. He should do his duty efficiently
and honestly. It is his duty to discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and
efficiency.
Henry raises the question “Of what use was morality to a person who did no more than
execute the will of the state according to certain scientific principles? Provided that
public administrators accomplished their given terms efficiently and economically, they
were moral in the sense that they were responsible” This is morality in public
administration and the civil servants must be accountable to this special type of
morality.
The accountability to morality may also be explained in terms of accountability to
consciences. A bureaucrat must always remember that he is performing his duties with
utmost sincerity, efficiency, and responsibility. When a policy is adopted, it is the duty of
the officer to so execute it that the benefits of the implementation reach the people for
whom the policy has been formulated.
There is another type of accountability to conscience. It is a very well-known fact that
the ministers in a democracy are temporary executives. Whereas, the bureaucrats are
permanent executives and they are fully aware of numerous aspects of public
administration.
Whenever a minister is going to make a policy it is the primary responsibility of the
bureaucrat or the secretary of the department or ministry to give or furnish all the details
of the ministry including the odds. If he fails he will be responsible to his conscience. To
put it in other words, by not providing the darker aspects of the ministry the civil servant
has failed in his duty. He has not acted according to his good sense or conscience.
Accountability to conscience has failed.
It is also the duty of the bureaucrat to warn the minister whenever the latter is going to
adopt a wrong policy. In a democracy the minister is the final authority, but it is also a
fact that so far as the policy-making is concerned he is fully dependent on his
departmental secretary. Naturally, it is the primary responsibility of the secretary to
aware the minister of the complexities and other aspects of the department. If the
bureaucrat fails he will be solely responsible for his duty.
Here arises the accountability to conscience. A well-known authority — while explaining
the relationship between the minister and his departmental secretary-said that it is the
duty of the secretary to furnish necessary facts to the minister, to warn him about the
possible bad consequences of a policy which he is going to adopt and, finally, to
surrender to the minister because he should know that the minister is his political
master.