Executive Accountability – Instruments, Significance & Challenges – Explained Pointwise

Monsoon session of Parliament is about to be begin next week. In parliamentary form of governments, such as ours, Parliament performs 3 cardinal functions – to make laws, to represent people & articulate their concerns and to secure executive accountability. The Parliamentary sessions are important in a democracy to hold the government accountable. Executive Accountability

What is executive accountability to Parliament?

• Executive accountability to Parliament is the foundational principle in parliamentary democracies that requires the executive branch—primarily the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister—to be responsible and answerable to the legislature (Parliament) for its policies, actions, and administration.
• In a parliamentary system, the executive is not separate from the legislature but is drawn from its members and remains accountable to it. This accountability is both collective (the entire Council of Ministers is responsible to the lower house) and individual (each minister is responsible for their department).

What are the various tools & mechanisms available with the Parliament to hold the executive accountable?

• Collective Responsibility:
  • No-Confidence Motion: The most powerful tool, where a successful vote against the government forces its resignation.
  • Budget Approval and Discussion: Parliament approves the annual budget and can question the allocation and spending of public funds. MPs can propose cut motions to reduce budget allocations, drawing attention to department shortcomings.  
• Individual Ministerial Responsibility:
  • Parliamentary Questions: MPs can use instruments like Question Hour to ask ministers about government policies and actions, compelling the executive to provide clarifications and justifications. Types of questions can be – Starred (oral answers), unstarred (written answers), short notice (urgent matters).
  • Zero Hour: MPs raise important issues without prior notice, compelling immediate responses from the executive.
  • Debates and Discussions: Opportunities to scrutinize government policies, bills, and actions on the floor of the House.
  • Motions: Parliament can express its lack of trust in the executive through motions like No Confidence Motion or Censure motion. If passed, the entire council of ministers (executive) must resign, representing the ultimate tool of political accountability. Other motions like Adjournment Motions are available to discuss urgent public importance. 
• Oversight by Parliamentary Committees:
  • Standing Committees: Conduct detailed scrutiny of ministries’ functioning, budgets, and legislation e.g.
    • Public Accounts Committee (PAC): Reviews government expenditure to ensure it conforms to Parliament’s decisions.
    • Estimates Committee
    • Public Undertakings Committees: Examine government spending and performance of public sector enterprises.
  • Ad-hoc Committees: Investigate specific issues or scandals.
• Elections: The ultimate form of accountability, where the government must seek a fresh mandate from the electorate at regular intervals. 

What is the significance of executive accountability by Parliament in democracy?

1. Checks and Balances: Parliamentary oversight acts as a crucial system of checks and balances, preventing the concentration and abuse of power by the executive. This ensures that no branch of government operates unchecked, upholding the principle of separation of powers.
2. Transparency and Openness: Regular scrutiny by Parliament compels the executive to justify its policies and actions, promoting transparency in governance. Mechanisms such as Question Hour, debates, and committee investigations ensure that executive actions remain open to public and parliamentary review.
3. Good Governance and Public Trust: Accountability drives the executive to align with the laws and policies approved by Parliament, deliver on promises, and respond to the needs of citizens. This enhances the quality and effectiveness of governance, inspires public trust, and ensures that government projects serve their intended purpose.
4. Financial Accountability: Parliament has the power to approve and scrutinize government spending. Through mechanisms like budget debates and committees (such as the Public Accounts Committee), it ensures that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently, effectively, and without waste, thereby preventing financial mismanagement.
5. Rule of Law: By holding the executive accountable, Parliament reinforces the supremacy of the constitution and the law, ensuring the government remains within its defined legal and ethical boundaries.
6. Facilitating Public Participation and Representation: Through parliamentary debates, questions, and committees, MPs can voice the concerns and views of their constituents, ensuring that diverse interests are represented in policy-making. This also provides avenues for public input and engagement in the legislative process.
7. Political Accountability: Parliament has the authority to make or unmake governments by expressing (or withdrawing) confidence. This ultimate sanction ensures the executive remains answerable to the representatives of the people.

What are the challenges in executive accountability?

1. Disruptions and Low Productivity: Frequent disruptions, protests, and adjournments during parliamentary sessions (e.g., Question Hour, Zero Hour) can significantly reduce the actual time available for accountability mechanisms to function effectively.
2. Inadequate Time for Discussion: Lack of adequate time for thorough debates and analysis of government policies, bills, and actions weakens effective oversight and accountability.
3. Declining Reference of Bills to Committees: A sharp drop in the proportion of bills being sent to parliamentary committees has limited detailed scrutiny and weakened checks on executive proposals. For example, in recent Lok Sabha, the referral rate of bills to committees dropped from over 60% to less than 15%.
4. Increasing Executive Dominance: The executive’s growing power—especially through mechanisms like ordinances and delegated legislation—can sideline parliamentary input, sometimes reducing the legislature to a “rubber stamp”.
5. Limited Access to Information: Parliament’s ability to obtain timely, complete, and accurate information from the executive is sometimes inadequate, hampering effective oversight and constructive action.
6. Opacity of Parliamentary Committees: While committees are critical for in-depth examination, their proceedings are often held in closed sessions, reducing transparency and public understanding of accountability processes.
7. Reduced Debates and Discussions: In recent years, there’s been a noticeable decline in substantial debates and discussions in Parliament, limiting the opportunities for public scrutiny and for holding the executive to account.
8. Anti-Defection Law: Anti-defection law can further limit the freedom of individual MPs to vote against their party, even if they disagree with a government policy, thereby reducing independent scrutiny.
9. Lack of Research Support: MPs and parliamentary committees often lack sufficient research staff and technical expertise to thoroughly analyze complex government policies, budgets, and departmental reports, making in-depth scrutiny challenging.
10. Question Hour Effectiveness: While a vital tool, Question Hour can be undermined by evasive answers from ministers, a focus on narrow issues rather than broader policy, and the lack of mechanisms for answering inter-ministerial questions.

What can be the way forward?

1. Increase Sitting Days: Ensure Parliament meets for an adequate number of days each year to allow for thorough debate and scrutiny of government business. Setting a minimum number of sitting days, as recommended by some commissions, could be a step.
2. Revitalize Question Hour and Zero Hour:
   1. Ensure Uninterrupted Sessions: Implement stricter rules and decorum to minimize disruptions during Question Hour and Zero Hour, allowing for more effective questioning and responses.
   2. Focus on Cross-Ministerial Issues: Develop mechanisms for ministers to answer questions that span multiple ministries, ensuring comprehensive accountability on complex issues.
   3. Prime Minister’s Question Time: Consider introducing a dedicated weekly or bi-weekly session for the Prime Minister to answer questions from all MPs, similar to the UK model, to enhance direct accountability at the highest level.
3. Pre-Legislative Scrutiny: Make it mandatory for all bills to undergo pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentary committees or through public consultation before their introduction in Parliament. This allows for early expert and public input.
4. Post-Legislative Scrutiny: Implement a formal system for systematically reviewing laws after their enactment e.g. 3-5 years later to assess their actual impact and effectiveness. This would involve parliamentary committees examining government departmental reviews, as practiced in some countries.
5. Dedicated Research Support: Provide committees with dedicated, non-partisan research staff and technical experts to enable in-depth analysis of complex policy issues, budgets, and departmental performance.
6. Strengthen Opposition’s Role: Provide more opportunities for opposition parties to set the agenda for parliamentary discussions and debates, allowing them to effectively highlight issues and hold the government to account.
7. Promote Intra-Party Democracy: Reforms that allow greater freedom for individual MPs to express dissenting views within their parties, without fear of punitive measures e.g. anti-defection laws applied only to no-confidence motions, could foster more independent scrutiny.

Conclusion:
The intention of the executive accountability by the Parliament is not to weaken or criticize government but to strengthen it by investing it with more meaningful parliamentary support. Thus, the parliamentary tools that hold the government accountable must be strengthened for the betterment of our democracy.