When decision-makers in authority intend something that would affect us in important ways, they must tell us the outcomes they want, for whom, and why they see the outcomes as fair. Citizens can then act to endorse, alter or halt what's proposed. The executive governments behind the OECD's MAI haven't told citizens the outcomes the MAI would bring about . So we must make them answer -- publicly -- and audit their statements. The Citizens' Circle for Accountability offers concepts and principles for this approach that apply to all public issues.

Principles of Accountability Relevant to the MAI

If we agree that responsibility is the obligation to act, and accountability is the obligation to answer for the discharge of responsibilities, we can hold to account through principles for answering that influence fairness and the performance of people in authority. Here are ten principles of accountability relevant to the MAI:

Intentions disclosure
People in authority intending action that would affect others in important ways tell those others the results or outcomes they seek to bring about. They state why they think the outcomes they intend are desirable and fair. (The equity statement proposed below is one possible form of answering.)

Directing mind visibility
Those holding governments, corporations or other organizations to account identify the "directing mind and will" publicly accountable for what people in the organization or set of organizations intend to do, actually do or fail to do.

Performance visibility
Actual performance is disclosed through adequate public answering by those with the performance responsibilities. Those in authority answer promptly for the results of their actions and for the learning they gained and applied from it.

Answering for precautions taken
Decision-makers in authority having a duty to inform themselves adequately about significant risks to people's safety, social and legal justice and the environment apply the precautionary principle in their decision-making. They answer publicly for having obtained reasonable assurance that it is safe to proceed and, if in doubt, for erring on the side of caution. (The U.S. Challenger space shuttle disaster is a well-known example of directing minds waiving the precautionary principle in a safety responsibility).

Corporate fairness
The directing minds of corporations answer publicly for serving the public interest when, in decision-making within their power, a significant difference is likely to exist between serving the public interest and serving the wants of corporation owners and management. Those responsible for oversight of corporations or their regulation report the extent to which their supervision meets the intent of the precautionary principle.

Citizen caution
Citizens apply to justice, equity and the preservation of community the same precautionary principle they must apply to safety and environmental protection. Through appropriate forums they set the public answering standards for the intentions of decision-makers in authority and hold them fairly and publicly to account.

Validation of assertions
Important answering for intentions, results and learning is validated by knowledgeable public interest groups or professional practitioners, or both.

Right roles
Those who are accountable give the answering for their intentions, reasoning and results. The answering obligation is not shifted to external inspectors, auditors, commissioners, ombudsmen or other examiners.

Governing body and citizen responsibility
To help ensure fair and complete answering, those legitimately holding to account act fairly and responsibly on answerings given in good faith. This applies to both governing bodies and public interest groups.

Wages of abdication
To the extent that citizens abdicate their responsibility to install public answering standards and hold fairly to account, they foster civic incompetence and give tacit authorization of the abuse of power.

Making the MAI Outcome Intentions Visible:
Equity Statements for Public Disclosure

The underlying issue in the MAI proposals is: whose needs would be honoured and whose would not? Since the governments involved aren't answering the "who" question, citizens and public interest groups must force the answering. The elected representatives in each OECD member country have a duty to inform citizens about the MAI's real implications, but they must first inform themselves. To do this they must require their executive governments to set out, for public challenge, in a simple set of statements for each of the main provisions of the MAI, basic information such as:

This answering requirement is legitimate: it is politically neutral and tells no one what to do. It simply says: "Publicly explain the intended outcomes, before anyone takes decisions." The explanations amount to a balance sheet of the fairness trade-offs implicit in the provisions. Each executive government must be made to give the explanations, and allow challenge of them. OECD can produce the information, because its staff already have it. What the OECD knows, its member governments can report. But citizens must force it.

Henry E. McCandless, APA Director
hemccand@magi.com

_____________________________________________________________

Notes: (1) The principles of accountability and the equity statement proposal were adapted from the author's "Equity Statements: a New Approach to Public Accountability," Canadian Parliamentary Review (autumn 1997) and from the accountability primer for citizens at the web page of the Citizens' Circle for Accountability: http://www.magi.com/~hemccand/cca.html

_____________________________________________________________

Henry E. McCandless, CA, is a writer and consultant in accountability and a founding convenor of the Ottawa-based Citizens' Circle for Accountability. Following university teaching, he served as Principal in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada from 1978 to 1996, and was seconded from 1994 to 1996 to the Canadian national foundation CCAF-FCVI as its governance and accountability research associate.

MAI-Not Home