Politics Of Humbug – Where Does The Buck Stop?

Accountability is the natural progression of responsibility. The word “accountability” has not been used often as the word “responsibility” for State actions

 

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

Writing from Montreal-29/04/2019

 

I had no idea of the enormous and unquestionably helpful part that humbug plays in the social life of great peoples dwelling in a state of democratic freedom ~ Winston Churchill

 

Churchill’s statement could just as well apply to the political life of the people he is referring to. The dictionary definition of “humbug’ is “deceptive or false talk or behavior”. It shares a parallel dimension with “ambiguity”, but humbug is more insidious and, in the context which I am referring to in this article, invidious as well. Anyone who has been to law school and studied the basic tenets of administrative law would know that there is a distinction between accountability and responsibility. Another basic tenet taught in law 101 is that if a person in authority knows, or ought to have known of an incursion into the law or dereliction of duty, he should be held reprehensible.

 

Robert Gregory, in his article “Accountability and Responsibility” states: “[A]ccountability and responsibility are related ideas that are central to political, constitutional, and institutional arrangements in Western liberal democracies. However, political elites in non-democratic systems are generally not held accountable by citizens through such arrangements, and accountability is primarily a means of securing the compliance of state functionaries to the will of these elites”. Gregory goes on to say that “a concept that embodies a number of different types, with a common theme of answerability by an accountor to an accountee, usually—but not necessarily—in a hierarchical relationship designed to ensure compliance and control. Responsibility, on the other hand, speaks of the associated but different domain of individual moral choice, where often conflicting duties of obligation are experienced by those in official positions”. Thus, accountability is often accompanied by blame shifting, making it a contentious part of a political process.

 

Responsibility is an internal moral objective while accountability is the higher level of externality ascribed to a person that imposes or ought to impose the obligation and ensures that responsibility is carried out according to modalities set by the person accountable. In the author’s own profession and discipline of civil aviation, an example is that although different entities may be responsible for providing certain services such as aeronautical and meteorological information and radio communications, if something were to go wrong in the chain of responsibility and damage is caused, it is the State that is ultimately accountable.

 

In other words, if, in a privately run airport, a construction built in the premises damages an aircraft, the State cannot say “I did not know of its existence” or “I was not informed”.

 

There are several instances in history where State accountability has been clearly recognized. The right of individuals to hold States accountable for injuries or damage suffered is also supported by the International Law Commission. So is it with the United Nations Compensation Commission which was established in 1991 to go into claims of those who suffered from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The claims that the Commission handled amounted to more than 2.6 million and compensation sought under these claims was about $352 billion. Similarly, another Commission – the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission- which was established in 2000 to compensate entities and individuals who claimed that they had suffered from violations of international humanitarian law, addressed issues of State accountability and reparation. The Iran-US claims tribunal is another example where an individual successfully argued that Iran was liable for the acts of intimidation and harassment, he suffered under the hands of Iranian citizens which prompted the former to leave Iran, which resulted in significant property loss.

 

Imposing upon the State absolute accountability wherever an official is involved encourages that State to exercise greater control over its departments and representatives. However, the State cannot ipso facto be held liable for each and every act of its servants and liability could be imposed only for acts that can be imputed or attributed to the State. The concept of attribution is contained in Article IV of the International Law Commission’s Draft Rules of State Responsibility which provide that the act of any organ of State, if it exercises legislative, judicial or executive powers, can be attributed to the State, whatever that organ’s position in the State is and wherever in the hierarchy of that it is located.

 

President Truman had a sign on his desk which said: “The Buck Stops Here”. It can be argued that what he meant was that in his administration although many had responsibilities to perform tasks and carry out orders in their roles as moral agents, he would take accountability for their lapses and deficiencies because it was his duty to make sure that his staff were led by him to act on defined processes and disciples. Ethics activist Geoff Hunt has stated: “accountability is the readiness or preparedness to give an explanation or justification to relevant others (stakeholders) for one’s judgments, intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called upon to do so. It is [also] a readiness to have one’s actions judged by others and, where appropriate, accept responsibility for errors, misjudgments and negligence and recognition for competence, conscientiousness, excellence and wisdom. It is a preparedness to change in the light of improved understanding gained from others”.

 

The clearly defined distinction between responsibility – where the person responsible for a task, function or to act under obligation has moral autonomy to act and decide - accountability- where the person accountable would, as one commentator put it: “ be held to external oversight, regulation, and mechanisms of punishment aimed to externally motivate responsive adjustment in order to maintain adherence with appropriate moral standards of action. Thomas Bevins in his essay Responsibility and Accountability says: “Unaccountable people are into excuses, blaming others, putting things off, doing the minimum, acting confused, and playing helpless. They pretend ignorance while hiding behind doors, computers, paperwork, jargon, and other people. They say things like “I didn’t know,” “I wasn’t there,” “I don’t have time,” “It’s not my job,” “That’s just the way I am,” “Nobody told me,” “It isn’t really hurting anyone,” and “I’m just following orders.” Unaccountable people are quick to complain and slow to act. In organizations, unaccountability is a highly contagious disease”.

 

Accountability is the natural progression of responsibility. The word “accountability” has not been used often as the word “responsibility” for State actions. However, there is a distinct link between enforcing accountability and the prevention of States from shirking accountability that flows from responsibility. In UN General Assembly Resolution 64/10 of 2010 which dealt with the Report on the Gaza Conflict between Israel and Palestine, one Whereas clause stresses “the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to prevent impunity, ensure justice, deter further violations and promote peace” and inter alia calls upon the Government of Israel to take all appropriate steps, within a period of three months, to undertake investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Fact- Finding Mission, towards ensuring accountability and justice” .

 

Accountability is intrinsically tied to the word “monitoring”. A person accountable should monitor those responsible for carrying out tasks and should ensure that the latter do not self regulate themselves.