Assignment task: Strengthening Public Accountability to make Democracy Work
The lack of accountability at all levels of legislatures, government, and oversight agencies is at the heart of persistent poor public services, financial mismanagement, and corruption in South Africa.
As the Zondo Commission into state capture winds down, a trend running through almost all testimonies is the pervasive lack of accountability by elected and public representatives. South Africa's constitution calls for accountability, together with responsiveness and openness as fundamental pillars of the democracy (RSA 1996, Section 1(d)).
Accountability in basic terms means to accept and be held responsible for or to account for one's actions. For the sector, accountability is there to ensure that any leader, manager, and organization "that use public money and makes decisions that affect people's lives can be held responsible for their actions". Furthermore: "It is about the relationship between the State and its citizens, and the extent to which the State is answerable for its actions" (New Zealand Controller & Auditor-General 2016: 9). Accountability lies at the heart of democratic government" (Guerin, McCrae and Shepheard 2018: 10).
Enforcing accountability ensures that elected and public officials act in the interests of the country, not in their own or that of their parties. Accountability is crucial in building trust in government. Without accountability, there is no public trust in elected and public representatives.
South Africa's Broken Accountability System
South Africa's public accountability ecosystem is broken. Effective accountability requires a sound accountability ecosystem that involves legal reporting frameworks these would include: effective internal government controls, processes, and institutions; democratic oversight institutions, such as Parliament, the Auditor-General, the Public Protector, and other Chapter 9 institutions; non-state oversight institutions such as the media, civil society, and ordinary citizens; and finally, consequences for wrongdoing.
Year after year the Auditor-General in audit reports bemoans the "lack of decisive leadership to address the lack of accountability by ensuring consequences against those who flouted basic processes" (Auditor-General 2018). The Auditor-General's reports have been largely ignored by ANC and government leaders. Former public protector Thuli Madonsela similarly exposed malfeasance by elected and public officials. For that, she was often attacked by ANC leaders (Pilane 2016).
The media, civil society organizations, and whistle-blowers have consistently pointed out corruption, mismanagement, and poor public services. They have similarly also been dismissed. The judiciary has often become the last resort for ordinary citizens to hold elected and public officials accountable when ANC and government leaders failed to heed other watchdogs' calls for accountability (Gumede 2016).
Throughout the presidency of Jacob Zuma, Parliament had been largely ineffective in holding elected and public officials accountable. Madonsela's successor as public protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane, who faces impeachment proceedings, has been disappointing (Saku 2021).
There must be a clarification of roles and responsibilities between ministers and senior civil servants. The principle of ministerial responsibility for the consequences of decisions made, policies implemented, and public services not delivered under their watch must be enforced, to ensure Cabinet ministers are held accountable and to stop the culture of impunity.
Ministerial responsibility means that Cabinet ministers are responsible for the decisions, policies, and actions of their ministry and their department as a whole (Bovens, Goodin, and Schillemans 2014; Guerin, McCrae, and Shepheard 2018). Ministerial responsibility ensures the accountability of government for the way public resources, finances, and services are managed. Ministers must hold public servants accountable if they do not implement policies effectively.
Cabinet ministers must be held accountable for wrong decisions in their ministries, departments, and the SOEs reporting to them. Ministers should be held more robustly accountable by Parliament. They must be held accountable even after they have left office. The president must also hold Cabinet ministers accountable more stringently.
There is a need to build stronger accountability systems within all levels of government. The political will to hold elected and public representatives accountable appears missing. Those responsible for mismanagement, waste, and corruption must be identified and action taken against them. If elected and public representatives are personally held accountable for public resources stolen, mismanaged, and wasted we may see greater accountability.
Finally, when the party and leaders in government fail to deliver on their promises, and become corrupt and are indifferent to the plight of ordinary citizens, the ultimate accountability measure for a governing party is for citizens not to vote for the party again.
Question 1: Public accountability may be a good thing, but we most certainly can have too much of it, and many refer to this as the accountability dilemma or the accountability paradox. There exists a permanent and inherent tension between accountability and effective performance and each of these functions can turn into dysfunctions if public accountability is too zealously pursued. Critically elaborate on the challenges that might be experienced because of excess accountability.
Question 2: From a sociological perspective, public managers face multiple accountabilities - to whom and for what must they report their actions? It is the question of substance of accountability and leads to distinctions, such as managerial, financial, program, or process accountability. In view of this critically discuss:
- Organizational Accountability;
- Political Accountability; and
- Legal Accountability.