Accountability … is it a reality or a myth?

Reading various media reports about the actions of individuals, politicians, state entity and government representatives, I am struck by how often the word “accountability” is so easily and even glibly used. How often do we hear that a particular person must be held accountable for their actions and how often in the end does it appear that they were not?

Accountability is simply defined as an “obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions”. It is the state of being accountable, that is being subject to giving account which implies being able to “explain or to be answerable for one’s actions”¹. In a political sense government ministers should be held accountable by parliament and ultimately the electorate. Government officials should be held accountable by their minister. In the corporate world, private sector CEO’s and senior management should be held accountable by a board of directors and ultimately by the shareholders. The coach of a football side is held accountable for the success of the team by both a board of directors and indirectly by the fans. Failure to keep winning matches leads to abrupt dismissal! At a personal level we as individuals should be held accountable by our moral code be that code religious, ethical, social or philosophical.

The Zondo Commission highlighted in its voluminous report multiple failures of accountability at parliamentary, government and state entity levels. In fact, Chief Justice Raymond Zondo quite recently berated parliament for failing to act appropriately in response to the findings of the Commission. Criticism has been levelled at the South African National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for its apparent inability to ensure that those miscreants identified by the Commission are held accountable and have their day in court.

The spectacular crash of the highflying Steinhoff International Holdings leading to the loss of billions of rands by investors and significant individual losses by ordinary citizens is reported to be the result of gross failure at various levels of corporate governance, another term for accountability to shareholders, and the allegedly fraudulent actions of the then CEO, Markus Jooste. Despite the Steinhoff crash having occurred in 2017, to date the CEO and senior management have not faced a single charge in the South African courts although Markus Jooste and others have been sanctioned by other bodies for their actions and Jooste has faced criminal charges in a German court.

In South Africa a recent media report highlights the problem of childhood malnutrition in the Eastern Cape province. Data provided to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) indicated that from 2021 to 2022 over 1000 children were diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition with a mortality rate of over 10%. Further the data showed that 25% of children in the Eastern Cape have stunted growth due to inadequate nutrition and this in a country where the Constitution states that everyone has the right of to have access to sufficient food and water². I am sure that data from some other areas in South Africa may indicate similar results and this begs the question, who should be held accountable for this breach of the Constitution?

Most recently, the world has witnessed two conflicts, one in Ukraine and the other in the Middle East where armed aggression and acts of extreme violence have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent people caught up in the conflicts. There is an International Court of Justice in The Hague set up under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 which should be a vehicle, as should the UN Security Council, to hold countries and individuals accountable for contraventions of international law but in many instances has proved unable to achieve this goal.

I have highlighted just a few examples and I could continue with a list that would exhaust the reader. Since the framework to promote and ensure accountability exists at various levels why are there are so many instances when accountability fails? My point is that while accountability is a term glibly used and often evokes moral indignation when failures of accountability are exposed, once that indignation has faded, are there tangible consequences? I apologise for the simplistic analogy but when I was a child my parents, who were not overly strict with their only son, taught me what in their opinion was the difference between right and wrong. When I transgressed the boundaries that they had set, I knew that I would be held accountable and that consequences would follow. Thus, despite being unaware of the term accountability, I learned that there were boundaries and even at an early age that I would be held accountable for my actions.

From those early lessons, the clear link between actions and consequences that govern accountability became clear. Reviewing the examples that I have outlined above, the glaring omission is that despite being able to identify when actions have transgressed the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, the failure of meaningful consequences make accountability impossible. Watching the recent World Cup Rugby Final I was struck by the fact that in that match players were obliged to accept accountability for their actions. The captain of the New Zealand All Blacks was found guilty of a dangerous tackle on his opponent and the consequence was a red card. This resulted in his team playing one man short for most of the game which could have been the fact that determined their ultimate defeat in the final.

Should those involved in actions that transgress the accepted norms of corporate governance be it in government, state entities or private companies not face the equivalent of an immediate red card? Should a minister faced by failure to uphold the terms of her or his office not immediately resign? The CEO of a private company is more often held accountable for the poor performance of the company by the board and obliged to resign. Should the government not resign once it has lost the support of the electorate even before it is voted out at the next election?

I would argue that in the current environment where a red card, making that an analogy for taking prompt and decisive action, appears to be a seldom occurrence and even when it occurs it is long delayed, accountability is largely a myth. The existence of accountability while much talked about becomes imaginary and unverifiable, mythical if you will. To return to the question that I asked at the outset, accountability is only really possible and will become a reality if the consequences of failures of accountability are significant and directly linked to the transgression. I am reminded of the response of the unfortunate captain of the All Blacks, who when asked how it felt to be red-carded in the final said that it would live with him for the rest of his life!

1. Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary
2. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996