The concepts of accountability and control in a Democratic Government
Accountability and Control in a Democratic Government
1. Accountability in a Democratic Government
Accountability refers to the obligation of government officials and institutions to justify their decisions and actions to the public and to accept responsibility for them. In democracies, accountability ensures that elected representatives and public officials act in the public interest and adhere to the rule of law.
Types of Accountability:
Political Accountability: Elected officials are answerable to the electorate. If they fail, they can be voted out.
Legal Accountability: Officials must comply with laws and can be challenged in courts.
Administrative Accountability: Bureaucracy is accountable for efficient and lawful administration.
Financial Accountability: Proper use of public funds is monitored and audited.
2. Control in a Democratic Government
Control mechanisms ensure that power is exercised within legal limits and that no branch or official exceeds its authority.
Forms of Control:
Judicial Control: Courts review the legality of government actions.
Legislative Control: Parliaments oversee and regulate the executive.
Executive Control: Checks and balances within branches of government.
Public Control: Media, civil society, and public opinion serve as watchdogs.
Case Laws Illustrating Accountability and Control
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) — United States
Facts: William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
Principle: Established the principle of judicial review, meaning courts have the power to review and invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.
Significance: It is a cornerstone of judicial control, ensuring the government operates within constitutional boundaries and is accountable under the law.
2. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) — UK
Facts: The UK government sought to trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) without parliamentary approval.
Principle: The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s consent.
Significance: Reinforced parliamentary sovereignty and accountability, showing the executive is controlled by the legislature and cannot bypass democratic procedures.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — India
Facts: This case challenged amendments to the Indian Constitution that restricted fundamental rights.
Principle: The Supreme Court held the basic structure doctrine — Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
Significance: Ensures constitutional control over government, preventing abuse of legislative power and protecting fundamental rights.
4. Nixon v. United States (1974) — United States
Facts: President Nixon claimed executive privilege to avoid handing over tapes during the Watergate scandal.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that executive privilege is not absolute and that the President must comply with judicial orders.
Significance: Demonstrates legal accountability and that even the highest officials are subject to the law.
5. Attorney-General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd (1976) — UK
Facts: A publishing house wanted to publish the memoirs of a former government official, raising issues about confidentiality and public interest.
Principle: The court balanced the principle of confidentiality against public interest.
Significance: Reflects the tension between government secrecy and democratic accountability.
6. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (1999) — UK
Facts: Prisoners claimed their right to communicate with journalists was unlawfully restricted.
Principle: The House of Lords ruled that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous legislation.
Significance: Highlights judicial control protecting civil liberties and accountability of the executive.
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — India
Facts: The government revoked Maneka Gandhi’s passport without due process.
Principle: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, requiring "due process" for any restriction.
Significance: Strengthens procedural accountability and legal safeguards against arbitrary executive action.
Summary of How These Cases Illustrate Accountability and Control
| Case | Jurisdiction | Concept Highlighted | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison (1803) | USA | Judicial review | Courts can invalidate unconstitutional acts |
| R (Miller) v. Secretary of State (2017) | UK | Parliamentary sovereignty | Executive must have legislative approval |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | India | Constitutional control | Basic structure doctrine limits legislative power |
| Nixon v. United States (1974) | USA | Legal accountability | Executive privilege is not absolute |
| Attorney-General v. Jonathan Cape (1976) | UK | Confidentiality vs Public interest | Transparency balanced with government secrecy |
| R v. Secretary of State ex parte Simms (1999) | UK | Protection of fundamental rights | Executive cannot override basic rights without due process |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) | India | Due process in executive action | Government actions must be fair and follow procedure |
RELATED Blog
0 comments