HUMAN RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY
THE ACCOUNTABILITY CONCEPT
Accountability has three dimensions: it refers to the obligation of those in authority to
take responsibility for their actions, to answer for them to those affected, and to be
subject to some form of enforceable sanction if their conduct or explanation is found
wanting. Responsibility requires that those in positions of authority have clearly defined
duties and performance standards, enabling their behavior to be assessed transparently
and objectively.
Answerability requires both private and public officials and institutions to provide
reasoned justifications to those affected by their decisions, to oversight bodies, and the
public at large. Enforceability requires putting mechanisms in place that monitor the
degree to which officials and institutions comply with established standards, and ensure
that appropriate corrective and remedial action is taken when this is not the case.
It constitutes an obligation to answer for the way in which an individual or agency has
performed responsibilities that have been entrusted to it (Facal & Mazouz, 2013).
In contemporary political and scholarly discourse, accountability serves as a conceptual
umbrella that covers other distinct concepts like transparency, equity, democracy,
efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility and integrity and is used interchangeably with
good governance.
It is also a human rights principle as a cornerstone of the human rights framework,
itself a system of norms that govern the relationship between “duty bearers”
in authority and “rights holders” affected by their actions. Through human
rights duties and obligations are created as well as claims. The existence of claims
then bring about an increased focus on accountability. Accountability is applied both in
public and private sectors.Thus as stated above, the concept of accountability has
three dimensions;
Responsibility which requires that those in positions of authority have clearly defined
duties and performance standards, enabling their behavior to be assessed transparently
and objectively.
Answerability which refers to the obligation of the government, its bodies and holders
of public office (state officers and public officers) to provide information about their
decisions and actions and to justify them to the public and other oversight institutions.
Enforceability suggests that the public or the oversight institution responsible for
accountability can punish the violating party or redress the contravening behaviour. It
also involves putting mechanisms in place that monitor the degree to which public
officials and institutions comply with established standards. The people or oversight
institutions may either approve of an annual account, denounce a policy, or condemn
the behaviour of an official or agency.
There are various categories of accountability which are classified according to
,accountability exercised or the person, group or agency the public official answers to.
They include;
Horizontal accountability which refers to the capacity of state institutions to check
abuses by other public agencies and branches of government. This can be equated to
checks and balances.
Vertical accountability also known as society driven horizontal accountability or
social accountability refers to the means through which citizens, mass media and civil
society seek to enforce standards of good performance on officials.
IMPORTANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability acts as a check to ensure that public, state officers and bodies perform to
their full potential, provide value for money in the provision of public services, instill
confidence in the government and are responsive to the community they are meant to
be serving.
United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) embodied an unprecedented international
consensus on poverty reduction as a shared global enterprise, framed around a limited
set of commitments to which both developed and developing countries would be held
accountable. The Goals fostered understanding of poverty as a multidimensional
problem and were intended to prioritize and focus development efforts and resources.
The Milenium Declaration affirmed the “shared responsibility” of all States, international
institutions, the private sector and civil society, the Goals did not articulate clearly
differentiated responsibilities for fulfilling the commitments. Neither did they reflect the
pre-existing obligations that States and other duty bearers have under international
human rights standards. Furthermore, the weakness of the Goals’ monitoring and
reporting mechanisms has rendered these declaratory political commitments difficult to
enforce.
Due to its shortcomings, there was an universal call for review of the goals in 2015. This
call has was reflected in the outcome documents of the 2010 High-level Plenary Meeting
of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals, the 2012 United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio+20”) and in the
recommendations of the United Nations SystemTask Team on the Post-2015 United
Nations Development Agenda, which proposed that the post-2015 framework should be
grounded in the principles of human rights, equality and sustainability. The United
Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015
Development Agenda clearly heard this call; in May 2013 it published its report
affirming that “new goals and targets need to be grounded in respect for universal
human rights.
United Nations Guiding Principles on business and Human Rights(UNGPs) was
endorsement of the UNGPs by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011 . This
, was a pivotal point in building consensus about the required standard of business
conduct that ensures respect for human rights. The UNGPs are based on three pillars
namely; State Duty to Protect Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility to Respect
Human Rights and Access to Remedy.
Pillar 1 - State Duty to Protect Human Rights: Describes the duty of the State to
protect those under its jurisdiction from human rights violations whether committed by
public or private sectors. This can be achieved through legislative and administrative
measures.
Pillar 2 - Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: Spells out the
responsibility of businesses to respect human rights by ensuring that due diligence is
exercised in their operations to avoid causing harm to individuals or communities. It
further calls on businesses to take positive measures to enhance the enjoyment of
human rights.
Pillar 3 - Access to Remedy: Emphasizes the responsibility of States and the corporate
sector to ensure that victims of human rights violations have access to effective
remedies. This can be achieved through judicial and non-judicial grievance handling
mechanisms has recommended that states adopt national action plans on business and
human rights to guide on the implementation of the UNGPs.
The bond of accountability between State and citizen lies at the center of an elaborate
web of interrelated responsibilities. Under international human rights law, States have a
duty to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of those within their jurisdiction, as well as
to provide effective remedies when they are infringed. These duties require States to
take legislative, administrative, judicial, fiscal and other measures to create conditions
in which people under their effective control can realize their
rights, including their economic, social and cultural rights. A vast number of national
institutions (including within the executive, legislative and judicial branches), each with
distinct responsibilities defined in domestic statutes and administrative law, are
responsible and accountable for the design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development programmes and their
impact on human rights.
Accountability Gaps and Remedies
Lines of accountability across State institutions are increasingly complex, owing to what
has been termed the shift towards network governance. In the context of the
Millennium Development Goals, weaknesses in the accountability of State institutions
have stemmed from a wide range of factors, including;
● bureaucratic fragmentation
● lack of domestic policy coherence
● weak tax administration
● Decentralization of responsibilities for service delivery without commensurate
resources and safeguards.
● lack of political will rather than a lack of resources.
THE ACCOUNTABILITY CONCEPT
Accountability has three dimensions: it refers to the obligation of those in authority to
take responsibility for their actions, to answer for them to those affected, and to be
subject to some form of enforceable sanction if their conduct or explanation is found
wanting. Responsibility requires that those in positions of authority have clearly defined
duties and performance standards, enabling their behavior to be assessed transparently
and objectively.
Answerability requires both private and public officials and institutions to provide
reasoned justifications to those affected by their decisions, to oversight bodies, and the
public at large. Enforceability requires putting mechanisms in place that monitor the
degree to which officials and institutions comply with established standards, and ensure
that appropriate corrective and remedial action is taken when this is not the case.
It constitutes an obligation to answer for the way in which an individual or agency has
performed responsibilities that have been entrusted to it (Facal & Mazouz, 2013).
In contemporary political and scholarly discourse, accountability serves as a conceptual
umbrella that covers other distinct concepts like transparency, equity, democracy,
efficiency, responsiveness, responsibility and integrity and is used interchangeably with
good governance.
It is also a human rights principle as a cornerstone of the human rights framework,
itself a system of norms that govern the relationship between “duty bearers”
in authority and “rights holders” affected by their actions. Through human
rights duties and obligations are created as well as claims. The existence of claims
then bring about an increased focus on accountability. Accountability is applied both in
public and private sectors.Thus as stated above, the concept of accountability has
three dimensions;
Responsibility which requires that those in positions of authority have clearly defined
duties and performance standards, enabling their behavior to be assessed transparently
and objectively.
Answerability which refers to the obligation of the government, its bodies and holders
of public office (state officers and public officers) to provide information about their
decisions and actions and to justify them to the public and other oversight institutions.
Enforceability suggests that the public or the oversight institution responsible for
accountability can punish the violating party or redress the contravening behaviour. It
also involves putting mechanisms in place that monitor the degree to which public
officials and institutions comply with established standards. The people or oversight
institutions may either approve of an annual account, denounce a policy, or condemn
the behaviour of an official or agency.
There are various categories of accountability which are classified according to
,accountability exercised or the person, group or agency the public official answers to.
They include;
Horizontal accountability which refers to the capacity of state institutions to check
abuses by other public agencies and branches of government. This can be equated to
checks and balances.
Vertical accountability also known as society driven horizontal accountability or
social accountability refers to the means through which citizens, mass media and civil
society seek to enforce standards of good performance on officials.
IMPORTANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability acts as a check to ensure that public, state officers and bodies perform to
their full potential, provide value for money in the provision of public services, instill
confidence in the government and are responsive to the community they are meant to
be serving.
United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) embodied an unprecedented international
consensus on poverty reduction as a shared global enterprise, framed around a limited
set of commitments to which both developed and developing countries would be held
accountable. The Goals fostered understanding of poverty as a multidimensional
problem and were intended to prioritize and focus development efforts and resources.
The Milenium Declaration affirmed the “shared responsibility” of all States, international
institutions, the private sector and civil society, the Goals did not articulate clearly
differentiated responsibilities for fulfilling the commitments. Neither did they reflect the
pre-existing obligations that States and other duty bearers have under international
human rights standards. Furthermore, the weakness of the Goals’ monitoring and
reporting mechanisms has rendered these declaratory political commitments difficult to
enforce.
Due to its shortcomings, there was an universal call for review of the goals in 2015. This
call has was reflected in the outcome documents of the 2010 High-level Plenary Meeting
of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals, the 2012 United
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio+20”) and in the
recommendations of the United Nations SystemTask Team on the Post-2015 United
Nations Development Agenda, which proposed that the post-2015 framework should be
grounded in the principles of human rights, equality and sustainability. The United
Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015
Development Agenda clearly heard this call; in May 2013 it published its report
affirming that “new goals and targets need to be grounded in respect for universal
human rights.
United Nations Guiding Principles on business and Human Rights(UNGPs) was
endorsement of the UNGPs by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011 . This
, was a pivotal point in building consensus about the required standard of business
conduct that ensures respect for human rights. The UNGPs are based on three pillars
namely; State Duty to Protect Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility to Respect
Human Rights and Access to Remedy.
Pillar 1 - State Duty to Protect Human Rights: Describes the duty of the State to
protect those under its jurisdiction from human rights violations whether committed by
public or private sectors. This can be achieved through legislative and administrative
measures.
Pillar 2 - Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: Spells out the
responsibility of businesses to respect human rights by ensuring that due diligence is
exercised in their operations to avoid causing harm to individuals or communities. It
further calls on businesses to take positive measures to enhance the enjoyment of
human rights.
Pillar 3 - Access to Remedy: Emphasizes the responsibility of States and the corporate
sector to ensure that victims of human rights violations have access to effective
remedies. This can be achieved through judicial and non-judicial grievance handling
mechanisms has recommended that states adopt national action plans on business and
human rights to guide on the implementation of the UNGPs.
The bond of accountability between State and citizen lies at the center of an elaborate
web of interrelated responsibilities. Under international human rights law, States have a
duty to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of those within their jurisdiction, as well as
to provide effective remedies when they are infringed. These duties require States to
take legislative, administrative, judicial, fiscal and other measures to create conditions
in which people under their effective control can realize their
rights, including their economic, social and cultural rights. A vast number of national
institutions (including within the executive, legislative and judicial branches), each with
distinct responsibilities defined in domestic statutes and administrative law, are
responsible and accountable for the design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development programmes and their
impact on human rights.
Accountability Gaps and Remedies
Lines of accountability across State institutions are increasingly complex, owing to what
has been termed the shift towards network governance. In the context of the
Millennium Development Goals, weaknesses in the accountability of State institutions
have stemmed from a wide range of factors, including;
● bureaucratic fragmentation
● lack of domestic policy coherence
● weak tax administration
● Decentralization of responsibilities for service delivery without commensurate
resources and safeguards.
● lack of political will rather than a lack of resources.
