It is evident that in Trinidad and Tobago, like many other countries, one of the main challenges is not about efficiency and effectiveness (which are doubtless important) but rather how to make institutions and actors responsible for the tasks which they were given. Often, we have heard that the Prime Minister, as the manager of the country, repeat the old adage that "the buck stops with me". And yet, when a minister takes an opposite view or when an institution fails to deliver, the 'mantra' is often forgotten. In reality, though, how much can a prime minister, a minister, a chief executive officer, a chairman, a principal, a lecturer or even a parent really be responsible for when it depends on individuals to actually deliver the policy? The far greater challenge, then, is how to make individuals responsible. No doubt, it is important to recall that a Prime Minister does have a number of obligations to a country and they were voted in by a type of mandate model which allowed them to make decisions on and for the good of the electorate. The substance of the accountability of any prime minister places at least four requirements on him or her.
These include:
(a) make laws work as intended with a minimum of waste and delay;
(b) exercise lawful and sensible administrative discretion;
(c) recommend new policies and propose changes in existing policies and programmes as needed;
(d) enhance citizen confidence in the administrative institutions of government.
While these responsibilities may seem crystal clear, the reality of carrying these through are fraught with confusion and chaos. Often, prime ministers are forced to operate in an environment with numerous uncertainties and challenges which are global in nature, and which to a large extent dictate the environment in which they are to operate. Because of the size and dependency of a country there is a direct correlation between the fortunes of a particular country and the wider environment to which it is linked. Thus, while often the civil society advocates for transparent and clear goals, it is often difficult for a head of state or head of government to define these goals. Any head of state or head of government thus has to perform a balancing act between what is perceived to be for the 'good' of a country, and what is perceived as the wider good. Often the choice is difficult and may sometimes eventually lead, as history has often demonstrated, to a loss in power. Apart from the challenges of operating within a global environment, however, a head of state or head of government is forced to balance the interests of the various stakeholders. But, as John Locke had pointed out in his Social Contract, what may seem to be in the interest of one party may not serve the interest of another. But it is not only the interest of the external stakeholder to which a Head of State must take cognisance of. There is also the interests of the members of the Cabinet as well as the interests of the Opposition party as well. Any head of state or head of government thus walks a veritable tight rope, brokering between and among competing interests. Similar situations occur as well in the daily lives of CEOs, managers, chairmen, principals, teachers and even parents. Sometimes what is perceived as the good of one will be perceived as the opposite to the other. Yet, one talks about accountability. The challenge, then, for all groups and individuals in positions of power is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that there is accountability by individuals within each organisation which would accordingly lead to improvement in the capacity of organisations and institutions.
A number of suggestions may be advanced to bring about the required changes. For example, Max Weber discussed three characteristics which may assist in this regard:
(a) Introduce fixed laws and official jurisdictional areas which are generally ordered by rules, that is by law or administrative regulations. While this referred to bureaucracy what may be applied in the case of individuals is therefore to introduce set boundaries with stated and clear performance goals. Accompanying these goals will of course be rewards as well as sanctions;
(b) activities and tasks must be clearly defined and measurable;
(c) methodical provision should be made for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties, and for the execution of the corresponding rights; only people with the generally regulated qualifications to serve are employed.
What may perhaps have seemed outdated since Weber wrote in 1925, seems to be relevant particularly when we engage on the debate of accountability. Each person within an organisation, whether public or private, political or independent, must firstly understand what is required of them in the context of the wider organisation. Tasks and responsibilities should be clearly defined, taking into account the various impediments in attaining some of the stated goals. Individuals should also be made aware of the implications of not delivering as it relates to them on a personal level and to the organisation as a whole. In other words, in every organisation, whether it resides with the head of state, or the head of government, there must be stated goals, alternate options and there must be clear standards for measuring these goals. It should be accompanied by sanctions or rewards. One sanction, suggested by the Prime Minister of this country was that a measure to ensure that the expectations of the people with met was to introduce the mechanism of recall. Measures in organisations may not be so dramatic but rather could range from pay incentives to other kinds of incentive schemes. In other words, in order for top executives to deliver the major intervening variable are actually the people who are the cogs of the wheel who are expected to deliver in a timely and effective fashion.
Accountability therefore lies not only at the top of the organisation but rather should be the responsibility of every person within an organisation, a family, a school or a country.