Have I been wasting my time writing the four previous posts about accountability?
I ask that because while I have suggested that the government's proposals are weakening accountability, that could be less important if there are other mechanisms for service improvement which could replace it.
Wondering if there is something better than accountability feels rather like committing some kind of heresy when the accountability of elected leaders to the public is the cornerstone of modern democracy.
But let's begin with the problem with accountability, which Wikipedia hints at nicely:
"It is often used synonymously with such concepts as responsibility, answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving."
Of course, for an account to be given or blame laid, something must have already happened.
So accountability will always be retrospective, at best offering a chance to change course when problems start becoming evident and at worst completely failing to stop any screw-up.
With hindsight
And this problem (if that is an appropriate word) is mirrored in the issue with which I began this series of posts, open data.
As Paul Clarke noted in an excellent comment he wrote on this post, the release of transparency data "seems largely to be a rear-view picture".
As he says, the release of information about "things under consideration but which haven't yet happened" such as future budgets could have a greater potential impact.
"That would test engagement in a far more meaningful way: would transparency then enable change before the event?"
So the alternative to post-event accountability might come in the form of pre-event engagement.
It is interesting that trends towards co-design or co-production of services don't pitch themselves as an alternative to traditional accountability, but perhaps that is what they can become.
If enough members of the public are involved in deciding on a service or a policy before it is implemented, there should be little that needs holding to account. If the policy fails, then the way to change it is not at the ballot box but through continued engagement with the design of the service.
I did note, somewhat disapprovingly, in a previous post that it is possible to end up in a position where voters should be holding themselves to account.
That previous reference, however, was to the public being logically responsible if they fail to vote out underperforming councils.
But with co-production we are talking about a different situation, where decisions have not been made by representatives but by the public themselves.
It is true, however, that participation could only replace accountability as a key democratic mechanism for ensuring legitimacy if it becomes widespread and systematic.
That is not where we are at the moment, but it is somewhere we could get to.
And that would certainly raise more questions about the nature of democratic accountability.
A loss of theoretical clarity
At the end of this series of posts, it seems like there are many questions and few answers.
It is important to recognise that the precise nature of public sector and democratic accountability has always been ambiguous in practice.
In theory the traditional upwards accountability has been simple, hierarchical and inward-looking within organisations, then structured through ministers and Parliament to the public.
But as we move into a world of more fragmented and devolved services, accountability becomes more complex and diverse, and faces out to service users.
Open data is part of this more complex picture, enabling (it is to be hoped, in time) people to understand and judge those services which they choose to use and over which they have some influence.
But the role of 'armchair auditors' is not yet thought through, and elections by themselves offer a disproportionate means for acting against wasteful spending.
In the past we at least knew what the situation was supposed to be in theory, even if the practice was less clear.
Now even a theoretical understanding of political accountability seems more elusive.
If service design and delivery improves to include more user involvement, however, then the current model of accountability will become less important.
The transition period, however, seems destined to be unclear despite the government's insistence that it wishes to be transparent about its actions so that it can be held to account. While its actions tend to suggest it is sincere in these statements, the practical effects may not be as intended.
Recent comments