ETHICS-03 (Brijendra Singh)

RESIGNATION as a MORAL TOOL

1. Powerful moral tool – displays willingness to make a personal sacrifice to uphold a

principle/public trust.
2. Measure of last resort – shows helplessness but also a fierce determination to not let the issue
go unnoticed.
3. Offers the following advantages:
i. Reinforces Integrity.
ii. Strengthens Responsibility.
iii. Activates Accountability.
iv. Provides Leverage.
4. Value of resignation depends upon the intention more than the act itself.

ACCOUNTABILITY

The basic features of accountability are:

i. It is based on Directives in the form of LRR, orders etc.
ii. It is objective in nature- this makes it easy to identify violations and impose punishments.
iii. It travels downwards, implying that it depends upon the presence of a Superior - Subordinate
relationship.
iv. It is enforced by external agencies, individually and collectively.

The advantages of accountability are:

i. It ensures standardization and consistency in administrative actions.
ii. It prevents misuse of discretion and authority.
iii. It promotes compliance and obedience.
iv. It safeguards citizens from arbitrary administrative actions.

Administrative accountability can be enforced through mechanisms internal or external to

administration. The internal mechanisms are largely individual in nature and refer to the authority
vested in an administrative superior to transfer, order a departmental enquiry, suspend or dismiss from
service, reduce in rank, withhold increments or promotions, appraise performance etc.

The external mechanisms are enforced by four agencies and are used to enforce accountability
collectively upon an administrative system.

LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL CITIZEN

Law making Delegated Judicial Review Elections
Legislation
Budgetary Control Expenditure Writ Jurisdiction Ombudsman
Tracking
Parliamentary Political direction Suits against Govt. Pressure groups
discussions (Art. 300)
Parliamentary Monitoring Public Interest Public forums
Committees Litigations
However, these measures, while essential, are not adequate. The limitations that arise in trying to
enforce accountability are:

1. A lack of time, expertise and resources to monitor countless field-level activities.

2. Accountability can consider the quantitative aspects of an action but not its qualitative
dimensions. In situations where discretion is involved, accountability is of limited value.
Therefore, it is easier to enforce accountability for goods but not for services.
3. Accountability is vulnerable to the risk of collusion between the service providers and
those who monitor their performance. In such circumstances, either appropriate
justification is not sought or appropriate penalties are not imposed.
4. In the absence of a superior-subordinate relationship, the imposition of penalties or
corrections becomes extremely difficult.

These limitations imply that accountability can improve the efficiency of a system but not necessarily
its effectiveness. This means that even though all the directives established by accountability may be
satisfied, the final result may still be unsatisfactory. Therefore, the quality of governance cannot be
meaningfully improved without self-regulation, institutional as well as individual.

Thus, ethical governance requires that accountability be more properly understood as the obligation of
those holding power to take responsibility for their actions. This responsibility comes by virtue of the
position that an individual occupies and adds a moral dimension to accountability.

SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Social Accountability refers to the ways through which societal actors (citizens, civil society, media
etc.) can engage with service providers to hold them accountable for the quality of governance. In a
traditional sense, it is enforced through a two-step process:

1. Enabling Voice, which refers to the ability of the citizens to express their needs and problems
to those who hold power.
2. Establishing Compact, which refers to the relationship through which those who hold power
act as representatives of the citizens and exert influence upon the service providers.

However, this makes social accountability an indirect and weak phenomenon because:

i) Voice becomes weak if citizens lack awareness or consensus.

ii) Compact can be compromised because of collusion.

Therefore, it becomes important to strengthen social accountability by educating and enabling the
citizens to raise their voice while simultaneously keeping a check on collusive elements. As such, the
most prominent feature in strengthening social accountability is a shift from “vote to voice” by
integrating citizen concerns and suggestions into the decision-making processes of the State. This can
be done at the stage of policy formulation, policy implementation or impact assessment, depending
upon the element of responsibility displayed by administration.