< >

23 May 2006

Accountable government, part 4

Transparency

It is essential that government focus on creating value, but wealth is a necessary and not sufficient condition of accountable government. Transparency is also essential.

Secrecy is the enemy number one of accountable government, just as it is incompatible with the application of the rule of law. It is imperative that governments and courts act in the open, under the scrutiny of all, at least as a matter of principle.

I would argue that democracy depends more on the rule of law than on the ability to vote to elect parliaments, presidents and so on. Many countries where people can vote are not democratic; every country where the rule of law applies is a democracy. The rule of law, aomng other things, limit the capacity of the state to keep things secret, invisible, inscrutable. The rule of law makes governments accountable.

Accountability is linked to the concept of public trust. It is an essential element of any governance framework in the public sector - and increasingly in the private sector. Networks and federated governance structures tend to take the form of representative committee structures that operate outside traditional accountability mechanisms.

The result may be an accountability vacuum and diminished transparency or at least a perception that this is so.

As a result these structures are susceptible to conflict of interest issues (lazy procurement by government, where the interests of the staff are put before the interests of the public, for the sake of convenience, or patronage, in its many forms) and "pass the buck" attitudes, where government agencies tend towards inaction or a minimalist approach because roles and esponsibilities are not delineated clearly.

If conflict of interest issues are left unscrutinised, unmanaged, unresolved, then fertile ground is created for corruption and for the corrupt.

At the operational level, there is a need to ensure that any given governance framework should provide strong and clear lines of accountability, by supporting cross-agency funding and reporting on shared outcomes - collective accountability.

When networks are formed, the network needs to agree on a clearly articulated role and purpose for the network, the roles of those involved, and their responsibilities and reporting mechanisms and processes.

Access to quality, timely information is essential to the workings of government. Its availability, exchange, quality and timeliness are essential within any network or federated governance structure.

Networks and federated systems depend on their information flows between stakeholders and their capacity to analyse and interpret information. The underpinning infrastructure, the information flows and the willingness and motivations of stakeholders raise risks that will impact upon the benefits that can be gained from a networked environment.

The "protect your patch” behaviour evident in some agencies may affect the information provided by advancing certain interests. Capacity to interpret and undertake sound analysis and arrive at good policy decisions may be lessened due to a lack of expertise, knowledge of the context, history, stakeholders and so on.

Where networks are closed (or perceived to be closed) and the decision making process is not transparent, decisions may be based on misinformation or flawed analysis.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home