Accountability mechanisms of different types can be found across Iraq’s multi-layered state. These mechanisms are intended to balance the power of the ruling elite, the bureaucracy and the public, so that each group regulates the other two. In practice, the system is ineffective.
The accountable state: the elite,
the government bureaucracy and the public
At its core, ‘accountability’ can be seen as a system to limit or regulate power (and the impunity of those who wield it). The question then is to define who is accountable to whom, in what areas, and how genuine accountability can be achieved in practice. In the context of this paper, the ‘accountable to whom’
part can be considered to consist of ‘vertical’ relationships (i.e., between the
elite and the public) as well as ‘horizontal’ ones (between and within the elite and
the government). The ‘what’ and ‘how’ refer to accountability mechanisms, which in turn cover two functions: answerability (the obligation of members of the elite to explain behaviour in specific areas, for example financial conduct or observance of human rights – i.e., the ‘what’); and enforcement (the right of society, for instance via legal mechanisms, to punish misconduct – the ‘how’).
Accountability mechanisms of different types can be found, at least on paper, across Iraq’s multi-layered state. Social power is spread across three groupings: the ruling elite, the government bureaucracy and the public. This means that each of these groupings also nominally has mechanisms at its disposal to limit or regulate the power of the other two, or to hold them to account. The problem, in the case of Iraq, is that many of these mechanisms are ineffective in practice.
The ruling elite includes the most powerful actors in this state structure. A policy definition of an elite is ‘those that hold a disproportionate amount of political power, who are able to influence decisions, mobilise popular support and implement policies at national, sub-national and transnational levels’. In Iraq, the elite consists of different groups of well-connected individuals who are members of political parties, or who are part of the security and economic networks connected to those parties. These individuals exert authority over the government and population. The social power of Iraq’s elite is ideological, economic and coercive.
The government bureaucracy is made up of civil servants, although they are not a single cohesive group. Some have the skills and know-how to implement policy independently. Others are political appointees whose agendas and influence undermine the coherence and power of their institutions, whether in the executive, legislative or judicial branches. In terms of the bureaucracy’s ‘horizontal’ relationships and obligations, its function is to maintain checks and balances within and between public institutions to prevent abuses of power. This function, at least on paper, is underpinned by civil service regulations and the rule of law. The Iraqi state’s institutional accountability mechanisms include the judiciary, the executive, independent commissions, the legislature (including parliamentary committees) and the security sector. These mechanisms also apply to the ‘vertical’ dimension of accountability between the state and the public. However, in both cases the effectiveness of this system is determined both by the independence (or de facto lack thereof) of the bodies tasked with enforcement, and by the ability (or inability) of accountability mechanisms to uphold the rule of law free from political, economic or coercive pressure.
For the purposes of this paper, the public, or society, can be defined as the population outside the elite and government bureaucracy. It includes civil society, labour unions, protest movements, academia, the media, religious institutions and tribal leaders. The public’s power comes in part from its numbers, reflecting the potential for mass mobilization and public opinion to hold the elite or the bureaucracy to account. Specific accountability mechanisms serving the public include those that provide what can be termed ‘representation accountability’ and those that provide ‘societal accountability’. The former exists when citizens can directly and indirectly elect elements of the elite and government bureaucracy; the latter involves the media and civil society exerting pressure on the elite through the dissemination of information that could generate protest or resistance.
In a multi-layered accountable state, as Figure 1 depicts, the government bureaucracy and society can act independently to limit or regulate the power of the elite. In states with higher levels of vertical and horizontal accountability, the public has greater trust in these accountability mechanisms.
