Affiliated Network for Social Accountability (ANSA-Africa)

Home

Feedback

Site map

Français

Português

Keywords:

Advanced search

Your email address:

Publications

Uganda: Policy note on Social Accountability
March 2008
World Bank

"According to our mission, social accountability is where the voice of the voiceless is heard so that people in the community are serviced without discrimination. Social accountability is where people’s rights are observed and if there is violation, people have where to report and such problems are resolved." (Focus Group Discussion, Community-Based Organization, Bushenyi District)

This Policy Note is based on a wider study that analyzed how various stakeholders in Ugandan society can better engage to improve social accountability in service delivery.¹ The study conducted a rapid assessment of selected public officials in three districts (Bushenyi, Lira and Mukono), NGOs and other civil society organizations, media associations, and Parliamentary Committees. Focus group discussions with members of selected community-based organizations were also held in the three districts. It also included an in-depth study of selected community-based organizations, brief literature reviews and a public opinion poll. The Policy Note synthesizes the report’s main findings and focuses on key policy recommendations. It is intended as an input into ongoing dialogue and a number of processes and efforts that aim to strengthen civil society participation to improve governance in service delivery in Uganda.

Social accountability: Concept and perceptions

Social accountability is an approach toward building accountability that relies on civic engagement, i.e., in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society organizations who participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability. Social accountability mechanisms refer to a broad range of actions (beyond voting) that citizens, communities and civil society organizations can use to hold government officials and bureaucrats accountable. These include citizen participation in public policy making, participatory budgeting, public expenditure tracking, citizen monitoring of public service delivery, citizen advisory boards, lobbying and advocacy campaigns. ²

Accountability can be addressed through various mechanisms:³ (i) political, such as constitutional provisions, separation of powers between the executive and legislature, and legislative investigative commissions; (ii) fiscal, such as formal accounting and auditing systems; (iii) administrative, such as hierarchical reporting, norms of public sector probity, public service codes of conduct, rules and procedures on transparency and public oversight; and (iv) legal, such as anti-corruption agencies, ombudsmen and the judiciary. These mechanisms are frequently referred to as the formal or “supply” side of governance or accountability, but to be effective they generally require that citizens and civil society “demand” accountability through various forms of civic engagement, also referred to as social accountability. The basis for accountability is incorporated in the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, which adopts the principle that public offices are held in trust for the people and requiring that all public officials be answerable to the people. Although Uganda has made considerable progress in strengthening the supply side of governance the findings of this study suggest that more needs to be done to strengthen the demand side of accountability.

In focus group discussions and key informant interviews social accountability was interpreted to mean holding civil servants, service providers and elected leaders accountable for carrying out their roles and responsibilities in delivering services. These discussions and responses, however, also revealed some practical constraints. Not surprisingly, civil society organizations articulated their understanding of social accountability in relation to the purposes for which they were established. These ranged from advocacy on education policies, human security in conflict areas, gender responsive policies and legislation, and monitoring of government programs and policies. Other roles include networking and creating space for information exchanges, and acting as the voice of communities to influence policies. Many civil society organizations and community groups see their first priority as helping constituencies meet their basic and most urgent needs, with other objectives, such as holding leaders accountable, as second order priorities. Parliamentarians tend to view social accountability as a tool for field-based auditing, monitoring and evaluation of the use of public resources and their cost-effectiveness. Although many community-based organizations viewed their role as giving voice to citizens and communities and promoting civic engagement, they were less clear in defining means and ways to demand social accountability. A number of respondents were also concerned that demands for accountability would be perceived as threatening or confrontational by public officials, and thus leave them vulnerable to retaliation.

Although the concept of social accountability is broadly understood, civil society organizations did not generally see themselves as empowered change agents. Even where entities such as School Management Committees appeared to have the mandate to demand and enforce social accountability, they often had poor knowledge of their roles and responsibilities, or interpreted their social mandate in relatively narrow terms.

Footnotes:

AFTCS. 2007. “Promotion of Social Accountability in Uganda: A Rapid Assessment of Civil Society Organizations,” October 2007, unprocessed draft.
World Bank. n.d. “Social Accountability Sourcebook.” Social Development Department. ftp://ftp.worldbank.org/pub/dfgg/socacc.htm.
C. Malena, R. Foster, and J. Singh. 2004. “Social Accountability: An introduction to the Concepts and Emerging Practices.” Social Development Papers, Participation and Civic Engagement. World Bank.

Download document...