5 minute read
Auditing SA Edition 6
by kwedamedia
In the development field in recent years, increasing attention has been given to understanding and promoting methods that enable relatively powerless people to hold more powerful people, organisations, and institutions to account. Many development practitioners see efforts towards this kind of accountability as having the potential to transform power relations in favour of the less powerful.
Citizen Participation and Accountability
For those who look at issues of governance and development from the perspective of citizens, it is both the right and the responsibility of citizens to participate in accounting for themselves and in holding other actors to account. If social exclusion and discrimination are to be reversed, governments and aid agencies need to be accountable to marginalised and excluded citizens. Involving such citizens in accountability initiatives calls for innovative and far-reaching participatory processes. In the words of a well-known scholar of accountability, Jonathan Fox, “If voice is about capacity for self-representation and self-expression, then power is about who listens.” (Accountability Politics: Power and voice in rural Mexico, 2008)
What is accountability and why is it important?
In their Policy Briefing on Making Accountability Count, IDS researchers Joanna Wheeler and Peter Newell ask why accountability matters for different actors, and under what conditions it operates. They tell us that “the concept of accountability describes the rights and responsibilities that exist between people and the institutions that affect their lives, including governments, civil society and market actors.”
They say that accountability takes many different forms, but go on to describe the two key components of most accountability relationships:
• Answerability – the right to get a response, and the obligation to provide one.
• Enforceability – the capacity to ensure that an action is taken, and access to mechanisms for redress.
They also argue that when accountability works, citizens can make demands on powerful institutions and ensure that those demands are met. This can enable them to realise their rights and gain access to resources.
How do citizens participate in claiming accountability?
Many methods for citizens to participate in claiming accountability have evolved since the 1990s. In their 2013 paper on The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives (TAIs), IDS researchers John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee look at TAIs from five different sectors.
They report on various approaches for citizen participation in TAIs from other parts of the world,
including. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys, citizen report cards, scorecards, social audits and community monitoring have all been used to develop direct accountability relationships between service users and service providers. Participatory budgeting, sector-specific budget monitoring and participatory audits have all been used to improve citizen engagement in the management of public finances.
Advancing auditing and accountability
Auditing is only one part of accountability. The early Egyptians and Babylonians created auditing systems, while the Romans collated detailed financial information. Some of the first accountants were employed around 300 BC in Iran, where tokens and bookkeeping scripts were discovered.
As early as the 5th and 4th centuries BC, both the Romans and Greeks devised careful systems of checks and counterchecks to ensure the accuracy of their reports. In English-speaking countries, records from the Exchequers of England and Scotland (1130) have provided the earliest written references to auditing.
INTOSAI-P 12: Strengthening the accountability, transparency and integrity of government and public sector entities:
Principle 1: Safeguarding the independence of SAIs.
Principle 2: Carrying out audits to ensure that government and public sector entities are held accountable for their stewardship over, and use of, public resources.
Principle 3: Enabling those charged with public sector governance to discharge their responsibilities in responding to audit findings and recommendations and taking appropriate corrective action.
Principle 4: Reporting on audit results and thereby enabling the public to hold government and public sector entities accountable.
Demonstrating ongoing relevance to citizens, parliament and other stakeholders :
Principle 5: Being responsive to changing environments and emerging risks.
Principle 6: Communicating with stakeholders.
Principle 7: Being a credible source of independent and objective insight and guidance to support beneficial change in the public sector.
Conclusion: What are the outcomes of citizen engagement?
In their Working Paper 'So What Difference Does It Make?', John Gaventa and Greg Barrett map the outcomes of citizen engagement from an analysis of one hundred case studies drawn from research carried out by the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability.
They cluster the positive outcomes of citizen engagement into four (4) main categories:
1. Construction of citizenship. Increased civic and political knowledge, a greater sense of empowerment and agency.
2. Practices of citizen participation. Increased capacities for collective action; new forms of participation; deepening of networks and solidarities.
3. Responsive and accountable states. Greater access to state services and resources; greater realisation of rights; enhanced state responsiveness and accountability.
4. Inclusive and cohesive societies. Inclusion of new actors and issues in public spaces; greater cohesion across social groups.
*Summary of the 2023 SAIGA Conference address by President Phillip Rakgwale
