Top-down anticorruption approaches have often failed and different approaches are needed to improve state accountability to its people. Donor support to social accountability in fragile and conflict-affected states is a relatively new phenomenon drawing from the lessons learnt from top-down approaches.
This paper identifies areas donors efforts should focus on in fragile and conflict-affected states.
Key findings:
- Social accountability relies on civic engagement, whereby ordinary citizens participate directly or indirectly in holding providers to account. Identifying who are appropriate facilitators of social accountability depends on the context. Channels such as civil society organisations often link citizens and the state, building accountability through community mobilisation, training, dialogue and collective action. Through this dynamic process, public officials are called on to inform stakeholders and to justify their behaviour, actions and results. They also may be sanctioned accordingly. Much of the learning and knowledge of social accountability derives from ground breaking initiatives in Brazil, India, Malawi, the Philippines, South Africa and Uganda.
- Conventional approaches to strengthening accountability through formal political channels often fail in fragile states. Social accountability requires a strong understanding of the context and drivers of change, analysis and building of state and society’s capacities, and locally driven mechanisms to mobilise citizens and address their concerns. Current social accountability initiatives include a range of activities to strengthen transparency, accountability and citizen engagement. In fragile and conflict-affected areas social accountability faces challenges of elite capture, violence and coercion and inconsistent data. It is further limited where it is difficult to mobilise citizens.
- To strengthen social accountability, donors can conduct or commission a mapping of stakeholder capacities and local accountability mechanisms. Knowing who are and how to support social accountability facilitators will depend on the context. In post-war societies, non-governmental organisations or community-based groups who served the public good before and throughout the war may be well placed to build and train networks of change agents, with careful consideration of politico-economic incentives.
- With an increasing number of groups pioneering social accountability initiatives in fragile and conflict-affected states, cross-sectorial partnerships can strengthen understanding of contextual dynamics and possibilities for scale. Social accountability thrives where government has both the interest and capability to deliver as well as the channels to interact with communities and their representatives. When these conditions are not present, it is necessary to bridge the capital and periphery, the urban and rural divide, to enable intermediaries, including parliamentarians, civil society organisations and sub-national officials, to convey and act on citizens’ concerns.
- Engagement between state and society is necessary to ensure institutional fit between demands, reforms and capacities of providers. Donor support requires strong understanding of who participates at game-changing moments of policy change and how reforms can build inclusiveness and accountability. With understanding of the local context and power dynamics, development partners can play a key role in supporting inclusive political dialogue and settlements, and strengthening accountability mechanisms.
