1st September 2021
The word ‘accountability’ in a political context means that a person with political power is required to give, well, an account of what they do and do not do.
This in turn means that exercises in political theatre – such as dramatic resignations and sackings, or prime minister’s questions, and so on – are not examples of political accountability.
Indeed, they can often be a substitute for the minister explaining about what happened on their watch.
And general elections are not an exercise in practical accountability: even taking the electoral system into account, parties campaign on broad manifestoes and are not obliged to fulfil and mandate if elected.
The nearest we have in the United Kingdom parliament at Westminster to the means of practical political accountability are select committee hearings.
Earlier today there was one such select committee hearing – the foreign affairs committee session with the foreign secretary Dominic Raab.
And to a certain extent this worked as an exercise in accountability: some further information was provided as to the circumstances of the evacuation from Afghanistan.
But rather than providing a full account of what happened, the foreign secretary often seemed uninformed and unaware, and he sought to hide behind long discursive answers unrelated to the questions asked.
Of course: by showing the vacuity of the foreign secretary the session was an exercise in political transparency, if not in accountability.
But there was nothing the committee could do – at least in the session – to require the foreign secretary to give a more complete and direct account of what happened.
And the session was not long – about an hour or so.
Yet this is the best we will get – the foreign secretary is now safe again from being probed closely as to what happened and did not happen.
We will return to ‘politics as normal’.
Perhaps one day, some earnest public inquiry will piece together a fuller account of what happened with Afghanistan.
And the time there is account, the relevant politicians will have long gone from being held to that account.
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
I am now in my 70s and I have become more cynical with age. I hope you don’t emulate my behaviour as you get older for your sake.
Unsurprisingly I share your concerns
Rather than have the PM appoint malleable friends and people to whom he/she owes favours to ministries potential ministers should apply for the job, with a CV. The shortlist should speak to the HoC about why their training and experience suits them for the job and then the whole house should elect one. Once chosen this person should be expected to stay in post until the next election. Forgotten Office ministers would be expected to have extensive experience as diplomats or in multinational business, NGO or charity work abroad. Some knowledge of a few foreign languages and familiarity with different cultures should be expected. Career politicians need not apply.
For Forgotten read Foreign. Though maybe some ministers are best forgotten.
No, the first formulation sums it up best – best forgotten office …
This HoC level of accountability described is quite thin gruel. But are there much better examples of the legislature holding the executive to account? Maybe the devolved parliaments as the most modern, should be the most enlightened, or the US system? or on the Continent? The European parliament is acquiring a track record of making life difficult for a Commissioner or two, but maybe only on appointment not on performance
One feature of Select Committees is that they build team spirit between members of the Committee.
The failure to answer questions may have done Raab much harm by ensuring that there is a body of cross-party opinion that he is, to put it politely, a disciple of Onan.
The word ‘accountability’ featured in the fairly recent Inquiry into the Renewable Heat Initiative in N Ireland; this was the ‘ash for cash’ scandal in which recipients of the government grant could receive £1.60 for every £1.00 of fuel cost.
The (then) First Minister, Arlene Foster, when defending her previous role, said she was ‘accountable’ but not ‘responsible’. It seemed a very lawyerly get-out at the time, even if accurate.
Is the Foreign Secretary both ‘accountable’ and ‘responsible’?
Good question – I have left a comment further down which relates to this – but my understanding was that you can be responsible but not accountable… ie you could be doing the thing, but the buck doesn’t ultimately stop with you.
However you can’t be accountable without also being to some degree responsible. Because if you’re accountable for something, the buck stops with you. Definitions of accountability I’ve seen do sometimes incorporate responsibility.
I think I would have to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being & Hellfire to hold out for some semblance of accountability in government, and not just the UK.
Coincidentally, a series of TV programmes has been airing around the events of September 11th 2001 and not one of the political participants in the aftermath have been held to account or hold any regrets for their subsequent actions.
Nonetheless, we had an earnest Public Enquiry (and others) which examined at length, the war in Iraq and events leading up to it. The principle political actors are still parading their laurels and / or wandering around the lucrative after-dinner circuits despite the millions who lost their lives and the only accounting that features is that related to their bank balance.
There’s more honour among thieves…
Isnt the fundamental weakness in any form of Parly. oversight this: that in this country the Executive sits in the legislature and controls it?
Anyone who lived through the Franks and Chilcot inquiries could write the executive summary of the inevitable Afghanistan Report now.
Therein lies a big part of the problem.
I’ve just googled vacuity…what a wonderful word. Most descriptive.
“Yet this is the best we will get – the foreign secretary is now safe again from being probed closely as to what happened and did not happen.”
This will not be an isolated scrutiny event. It will take place in the context of further work by this and other select committees (Defence and International Development), Questions and debates on the floor of the House, possible Westminster Hall debates, Questions to the PM at the Liaison Committee from Select Committee chairs. I would expect members of Select Committee to exploit all the many tools available -part of the everyday life of MP’s in their role as scrutineers and ‘politics as normal’.
Raab may yet be toast…if only because he is not well regarded by many who sit on the same side of the House as he.
As we saw with the recent farce that Johnson put on before a ‘Select Committee’ the whole process is utterly worthless.
While I have a lot of reservations about the US system of oversight what it does have, which glaringly the UK system does not have is teeth, put simply you don’t mess around with and oversight hearing the consequences of doing so can seriously damage your right to freedom.
Not saying it is perfect, it could do with some tweaks but until we have a system in the UK that truly holds MP’s and the Government to account for its actions with the teeth to make that stick how on earth are you ever going to get them to give you the facts if they have no reason to do so, the arrive grinning and leave laughing having given nothing which is exactly what Raab did today.
Great piece as always. I have a comment about accountability itself – political or otherwise – because it seems to me that for most people it comes not just with a sense of “giving an account”, but also of “consequences”. That is to say that when seeking to secure accountability or “holding someone to account”, the popular understanding is that there would be a meaningful consequence for the person in question.
I should say that the dictionary definitions I’ve seen don’t quite go this far – they vary from “being called upon to justify one’s actions” (pretty close to yours) and “being responsible for what you do and able to give a satisfactory reason for it” (you could say the inclusion of “satisfactory” gets closer to consequences, because consequences might follow if the account given is not satisfactory).
But in practice, I think that when people say they want accountability (from something like the Hillsborough tragedy), they are not just saying they want a full account given, but that they want one or more people to take responsibility and then to face the logical consequences of taking that responsibility.
I think this is important not only because of having shared meanings for stuff, but also because, with the rise of seemingly shameless politicians (a la Trump) who are willing to say controversial things and somehow get away with it, it seems possible to me that such a politician could give an account for their actions, which is perhaps both honest and scandalous, and yet they would not face any meaningful consequences for it. And in such a situation, I think many would say that accountability and not been secured for that person’s actions.
I happen to work on this in my day job (accountability as it relates to public services in places where those services are poor) so I’m interested in whether we are getting the concept right (and would be very happy to hear your thoughts – e.g. is there more nuance to accountability, and different types of it, that I’m not aware of). We certainly consider elections to be *potentially* an exercise in accountability. Thanks.
I think there may be a useful distinction here between ministerial accountability and ministerial responsibility?
I’d agree that “accountability” should also mean taking (some) “responsibility”. In the way it was used in my initial comment, it did seem that Arlene Foster was using a lawyerly form of words — she is a solicitor — to evade any form of responsibility for what happened. (And partly due to this we had the local Assembly closed for three years.)
David said in reply to you, “I think there may be a useful distinction here between ministerial accountability and ministerial responsibility?”
Perhaps he could expand on just what he means by this in a ministerial context.
Although the current administration lies more openly than most and has an aversion to being “gentlemanly”, I am not sure that the constitutional position has changed one jot.
People resign if they have sense of honour or if there will be electoral consequences of failing to resign. House of Commons committees can embarrass ministers but they can’t force them out, and in the Chamber people vote with their party, which nearly always means a majority supporting the ministers. It has always been thus.
The only difference is that this lot have no honour and the current iteration of the Tory party seems to think that there are no electoral consequences of being dishonourable – and they could well be right.
“…the vacuity of the foreign secretary…”, is a delectable description of that gentleman.
A couple of days ago the Italian newspaper La Repubblica published an article by a distinguished philosopher who – on reading through the language and the (soi-disant) thought of our own far-right leader (synonimous with fascist, in any decent country), Matteo Salvini – spoke of horror vacui.
I tend to agree with that sort of analysis: nature abhors vacuum, hence politicians of that kind fit the purpose.
But we should all be alert because what appears a vacuum is often a way to disguise dangerous political designs.
“little the committee could do…..” I wonder. Might not chairing be a lot more brutal in cutting off evasive and irrelevant responses, and insisting on direct answers? It would no doubt be seen as a breach of the olde worlde courtliness that the HoC loves to hide behind, but I wonder whether Yvette Cooper would have given Rabb quite so gentle a ride.
Which, of course, means once again that everything depends on whether the House is willing to assert itself. It gets closer on Select Committees than anywhere else, but there is a long way to go Interviewing new Cabinet appointees wouldn’t be a bad start, even constitutionallythey couldn’t be confirmation hearings as in the US.