Voice for Accountability: Citizens, the state and realistic governance - ODI Briefing Papers 31 - Briefing papers

When do citizens’ voices and demands result in improved state responsiveness, transparency and accountability? First, when the citizenry is active in shaping policy priorities and demanding greater openness and responsiveness from the state. Second, if state institutions view their responsibilities to citizens as central. In reality, however, the state in many developing countries is not sufficiently accountable to its citizens, whose voices often remain unheard or are simply too weak to have any influence. Recent work on a multi-donor evaluation commissioned by seven Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors looks at policies and interventions funded in an attempt to address the thorny issue of how the relationship between citizens’ voice and state accountability works in practice. The terms ‘voice’ and ‘accountability’ often mean different things to different people in different contexts or traditions. For example, from a human rights perspective, ‘voice and accountability’ refers to the relationship between right holders (citizens) and the duty bearer (the state). In the field of governance assessment, ‘voice and accountability’ is a key indicator encapsulating a broad range of factors, from freedom of expression and respect for civil liberties to free and fair elections and the just rule of law. Box 1 contains an operational definition of these terms. The relationship between voice and accountability is central to the debate on realistic governance: i.e. how good governance can be operationalised in practice. Linking ‘voice’ and ‘accountability’ can only be meaningful when citizens have the knowledge and power to make demands, and those in positions of power have the capacity and will to respond. Research suggests that three implications follow: • Focusing solely on either voice or accountability is not enough. Often donor initiatives focus either on voice (e.g. funding to create spaces for citizens’ voice) or accountability (e.g. an initiative to strengthen state capacity to respond) (see Box 2). • Voice does not always lead to accountability. The circumstances in which voice leads or contributes to greater accountability vary with Accountability is key for their voices to be heard ria