If social accountability is to be successful in holding public power-holders responsible for their actions, then the state must support the mechanisms used in exacting it. This chapter examines the many types of state support for social accountability, from the intensely active to the extremely reluctant.
Citizens asking the state for social accountability can be met with a range of responses, from enthusiastic support to violent repression. Between these two extremes there is a neutral zone, where the state may, for example, allow newspapers to publish whatever they want, without providing them with support.
Each mechanism for social accountability can be classified according to its source of authority; the essential requirements for its success; whether it requires significant state financing; and whether it operates at national or local level.
For different gradations of state support, there are a number of concrete examples of mechanisms that can be cited. Moving progressively from the ‘active’ to the ‘passive’ end of the spectrum:
- The state needs to act as a champion in the cases of participatory budgeting and decentralisation. Both of these mechanisms need assertive state support to overcome obstacles. The state needs to provide strong backing to mechanisms such as ombudsmen, by providing necessary resources and authority.
- The state should provide encouragement for report cards initiatives, by responding positively to negative reports. The state merely needs to provide statutory endorsement for mechanisms such as elections.
- State acceptance is required for civil society advocacy. Acceptance can range from formal recognition to financial support. Public interest law suits only require state consent, as they will not be otherwise assisted.
- Independent media are a thorn in the side of any government, and require the government to acquiesce and allow them to function. In the case of privatisation, although the state needs to start the process, the predominant stance is of disinterest.
- Human rights organisations generally only produce bad news for governments and thus require state forbearance in not suppressing them. Finally, the state provides grudging assent by acceding to the demands of mass demonstrations.
The origins of support for these mechanisms can come from the ‘supply side’ of governance, through the constitution, legislation and executive leadership. Alternatively, support can come from the demand side, through civil society or international pressure:
- The most important mechanisms – elections, civil society and independent media – are not those in which state support is most active. Only elections require government support, and this is minimal.
- A majority of the mechanisms exist independently of state funding. Nine out of 15 mechanisms discussed require no state funding.
- The level of state funding and the level of state support are not the same thing. The state shows its support mainly through commitment to democratic norms.
- All authorities for social accountability mechanisms are contingent on other actors’ support. All sources of authority must be constantly attended to: constitutions must be enforced, civil society must advocate, and so on.
- National and local contexts largely require different mechanisms. Some mechanisms – such as civil society advocacy – cover both macro and micro levels, but most operate at one level or the other.
