Accountability is more than accounting

Without an election call, much of the political drama in Ottawa lately has focused on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. With its lurid allegations of political corruption and large sums of money exchanged for political influence, it seems like a relic of a dark and shameful past in contrast to our accountability-obsessed era.

Last week, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Ethics and Privacy released a final report, following public hearings that kept TV viewers spellbound for months. They recommended a broad public inquiry that would examine the full scope of the relationship between the former prime minister and the former lobbyist. David Johnston, the special advisor named by Prime Minister Stephen Harper late last year, outlined his recommendations for the mandate of a public inquiry on Friday. Accountability, it seems, has been restored to Ottawa once again.

But,  reflecting on the hyperbole of accountability in the past four years of Sponsorship Scandal, the Accountability Act, the In-and-Out Scandal, the Cadman affair and Mulroney-Schreiber affair, it seems to me that in our genuine desire to root out monetary corruption, we’ve made accountability far too simplistic.

We’ve confused accountability with accounting. Accountability is defined as transparent and appropriate use of public funds, with no funds slipped into the pockets of elected officials and supporters or used in ways that skirt the law, and a balanced budget at the end of the year. If you can follow the money trail, and there’s no unethical behaviour by individuals in spending that money, you have your accountability.

I’m all for accountability of public funding. But how did we end up in this situation, where public policy results don’t matter as long as the money is accounted for? Is this really all there is to accountability? Surely we trust our elected representatives to do more than balance the budget and avoid political corruption.

Accountability should also consider results and outcomes. We should be asking if policies, programs, and government services are actually achieving the desired outcomes. Is a particular action having the expected impact? Is money not only invested carefully but wisely? Is the program delivering on its goals?

Accountability must also embrace consideration of well-being, for both people and the environment. Is public justice being served? Does a particular policy cause harm to the well-being of some or all Canadians? If so, how can it be changed to alleviate the harm? Is it respectful of the dignity of all Canadians? Does it promote the common good or the particular interests of some? Does it foster an integrated approach to well-being? Is it respectful of other societal institutions, and does it encourage their appropriate role? Does it promote respectful use of the environment? What kind of environmental legacy will it leave our children?

Our current limited definition of accountability has led to the obvious response of making it more difficult to misspend money. So the money chain was complicated, with more people signing and revised rules for bureaucrats’ accountability to their political bosses. Checks and balances not working? Let’s add more. The result is a lengthy chain of authority that may stifle creativity in its desire to avoid even the appearance of misspending public funds. Who wants to think up new policies and programs when fears of misdirected funds loom overhead? In failing to look at the bigger picture, we might even be creating a negative impact on policy outcomes.

Reclaiming a fuller, richer understanding of accountability would impact politics and policy in Canada, but it will also change our understanding of how to practice accountability and who is held accountable. Elected officials and policy makers must be accountable for their decisions and their policies and programs to constituents. But we as citizens must hold them accountable.

Do we as citizens actively seek to hold our leaders accountable for their policy choices and decisions and their consequences? Do we strive to be participants in a conversation for the common good? Do we seek to engage in dialogue with other citizens and other communities, building respect and understanding that foster a climate of well-being for all? Do we practice justice and care in our relations with others and with the environment? Are we engaged as citizens not only during elections but between elections, challenging, encouraging and aiding our elected officials and leaders to practice public justice?

Rooting out political corruption is a good thing. So is eliminating the undue influence of money in our political process. But achieving genuine accountability is an on-going process that must encompass a much bigger picture.