A History of Accountability

It's commonly said that modern civilisation is rooted in the ancient world. When it comes to accountability, this is demonstrably true.

The term 'accountability' was mostly absent from dictionaries and encyclopedias until the 1980s. At this point, it was applied to the public sphere, imposing on politicians and administrators 'the obligation to answer publically, fully and fairly, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the public in important ways.'[1] More recently, concepts of accountability have been applied to the corporate sector as a method of improving compliance, leadership and productivity. Many people have also applied accountability in their personal lives, making themselves accountable to others for the achievement of goals.

While accountability might, then, seem to be a modern phenomenon, this is far from the case. The modern term simply encapsulates ideas of political responsibility and legal liability which can be traced back throughout history. Accountability has been a part of countless societies in countless ways. But three key ideas which have been particularly formative for the Western conception of accountability that dominates today are able to be traced back to the ancient world—the rule of law, the accountability of leaders and the codification of law. Understanding how accountability has developed and functioned in the past can help us to understand why it's important today and how we can implement it in our organisations.

The Rule of Law

A foundational principle of public accountability is the rule of law—'the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced.' [2] Its first expression is attributed to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who stated:

'It is more proper that the law should govern than any one of the citizens.' [3]

Aristotle believed in a natural law which dictates universal moral norms, existing independently of and above any human laws. The law is the supreme moral authority to which all people, including rulers, are accountable.

Building on Aristotle, the Roman lawyer and philosopher, Cicero, wrote:

'True law is right reason in agreement with nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting... and there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws no and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations at all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, god, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.' [4]

According to Cicero, there was one universal law which all people in all places and times were accountable to keep because it was given and judged by a god who was over them all. Even in an increasingly secular West, this idea, known as natural law, underlies our desire to ensure that everyone, from national leaders to small business owners, is held responsible for wrongdoing.

The concept of the rule of law survived through the ages—in the West, primarily through Greek and Roman philosophy. A significant resurgence came in 13th-century England. In 1215, King John responded to political crisis by issuing the Magna Carta—a charter which established that the law was authoritative over all people, including the king. [5] This and later writings that picked up on similar ideas stated that the ultimate authority was God, to whom the king was accountable. Under God's direction, the law made a man king, so he was accountable to it. [6]

The phrase 'rule of law' was popularised in the late-19th century by A. V. Dicey, who stated that 'the undisputed supremacy throughout the whole country of the central government' is a feature which 'at all times since the Norman conquest characterised the political institutions of England.' [7] Because of its centrality in English political history, the rule of law was a foundational principle in the 1791 United States Bill of Rights. Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense—a highly influential work advocating for independence from Britain—argued:

'In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.' [8]

This idea is preserved in the constitutions of countries all around the world. It 'provides modern societies with stability and a clear system for resolving conflicts between citizens... and allows all individuals and institutions (including the government itself) to be held accountable for their actions.' [9]

In similar ways, the rule of law has been applied to organisations. In the field of leadership development, the literature often stresses the need for a culture of accountability in which all are responsible to the same set of rules and expectations. Failing to have accountability at all levels of an organisation contributes to poor performance, chronic inefficiency, lack of trust, questionable ethics, and poor customer satisfaction. [10] In an effective culture of accountability, all individuals 'take personal responsibility for their outcomes and hold one another responsible for delivering promises.' [11] More recently, there has been an emphasis on reciprocal accountability, in which all people involved hold each other mutually accountable. [12] But the foundation of this is still the millennia-old idea that accountability must be given by those at the top to those below.

The Accountability of Leaders

Creating a culture of accountability in an organisation starts with its leader. Effective leaders take responsibility for their own actions and take seriously their responsibility for getting results from others. [13] The increase in calls for accountability among organisational leaders over the past few decades borrows from a similar process of calling political leaders to account. Leaders throughout history have certainly not always been called to account. But systems for their accountability are not a modern invention—the idea of the rule of law demands that leaders be accountable to the people.

The accountability of officials was a crucial pillar in the democracy developed in Athens from the 6th century BC. The orator Aeschines boasted that 'in this city, so ancient and so great, no man is free from audit who has held any public trust.' [14] Safeguards against corruption and negligence were put in place—a scrutiny before taking office, one-year terms ending with an official review, and regular opportunities for deposition. [15] And the Athenians followed through. Some of the most famous Athenian figures including Thucydides, author of the History of the Peloponnesian War; the great statesman, Pericles; and Militiades, hero of the Battle of Marathon, faced impeachment while serving as generals. [16] The Greek city of Locris went as far as to decree that anyone who intended to propose a new law or a revision of a law must come into the assembly place with a rope tied around his neck, to be pulled if his proposal was rejected. [17] This is likely apocryphal, but the Greek writers made no secret of their disdain for systems of government which lacked accountability. Herodotus, for example, criticised the Persian monarchy by putting these words in the mouth of an official in his Histories:

"There can no longer be a single sovereign over us, for that is not pleasant or good… How can monarchy be a fit thing, when the ruler can do what he wants without impunity?" [18]

Similarly to the Greeks, the Romans inherited a disdain for unaccountable leadership. This came from their tumultuous, semi-mythological early history. The short-lived era of Roman kings ended in the rape of a noblewoman and the violent overthrow of the monarchy. This marked the beginning of the Roman Republic, which incorporated structures of accountability. The highest magistrates in Rome, the consuls, began their terms of office by making vows for the welfare of the state and ended them by swearing that they had acted according to its law and for its good. Consuls were immune from prosecution while holding office, but their one-year terms made it inevitable that they would have to face punishment for any wrongdoing or incompetence of their administration. [19] A well-known example is Verres, the governor of Sicily, who was prosecuted by the previously mentioned Cicero for corruption, extortion and temple robbery. [20] During their term, the power of the two consuls was further tempered by their equal status, as both had to agree to any course of action, and the veto power of other magistrates. [21] When the republic gave way to empire, this kind of accountability survived only in the lower levels of government—the emperors themselves, while at times working with the Senate, the magistrates and the people, were legally accountable to no one and immune from prosecution.

The Roman Empire continued to rule for centuries. Its political and administrative structures, which put ultimate power in the hands of an emperor, were perpetuated. When the empire was split into east and west, both were headed by an emperor who held absolute power and was considered chosen by God. He was supported by the Senate and officials—all of whom were appointed by him rather than being elected. While the emperor was supposed to, and often did, consult the Senate and officials, he had no real obligation to abide by their advice.

Five centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire emerged to take its place. Some echoes of the ancient empire remained—it was still ruled by an emperor, for example. However, it was a state made up of states and, therefore, an autocratic, unaccountable leader was unrealistic. The ancient title of 'Emperor' came to designate an elected monarch of limited power. The empire was ruled by regional princes and lords who were technically the emperor's vassals, but in reality, exercised near autonomy. One of their many privileges was that the emperor could not intervene in their affairs if they were acting lawfully. Even in Germany, where the emperor was the sole ruler, his exercise of power was limited by the Imperial Diet—a body made up of representatives of the empire's states. [22]

Across the channel, in the Kingdom of England, the monarchy was similarly limited, being moulded by Roman and ecclesiastical law as well as tribal and feudal traditions. The king required support from the nobility for his decision-making, to receive finances, and to implement his rule. [23] He was considered under the law since his power was given by the law. Two ideas were held in tension—the king was supreme and, therefore, immune from prosecution, but at the same time, he was expected to act within the law and his acts should be undertaken with the input and consent of his ministers. [24] The contemporary concept of accountability has been traced back to late-11th century England, when King William I required all landowners to provide a count of their possessions and swear allegiance to him. In doing so, he established an accountability relationship in which the landowners were 'autonomous agents who were able and willing to adhere to a moral obligation to account for their actions.' [25]

Questions of sovereignty and accountability were seriously taken up in England from the late-12th century as increasingly powerful and complex institutions needed increasing regulation. Initially, regulation was primarily concerned with officials. [26] However, this began to shift in the 13th century, when King John lost much of his power. He was pressured to limit the power of the crown by signing the Magna Carta, which would later become a cornerstone of modern democracy. When King John died, he was succeeded by Henry III—a minor with no legal authority, who was controlled by the barons and inherited his father's obligations to the papacy. [27] Substantial power being held outside of the crown presented a unique opportunity to limit the royal prerogative. Henry's rule also made clear the dangers of the kingdom relying on one man—or, in this case, boy. [28] Responsibility was increasingly shifted off the King and onto his ministers who, unlike the King, did not enjoy sovereign immunity. During the minority of Henry III, they were clearly acting independently and could, therefore, be held responsible. A system of constraint and accountability, including measures such as impeachment, began to develop. At the same time, the idea of the fallibility of the crown, on behalf of which the ministers were acting, was strengthened. [29]

The advances in ministerial responsibility made in the 13th and 14th centuries were incomplete, and they fell into disuse for some centuries. The government was controlled by the king, who appointed ministers and held them accountable only to himself. From the 17th century, however, war and revolution in England resulted in a new constitutional order which revived the Magna Carta, ministerial accountability and impeachment procedures. The parliament was now accountable to the nation, not the king. [30]

These changes were contemporaneous with milestones in political philosophy. Early in the 17th century, the Spanish priest and philosopher Franciso Suarez built on ancient Greek philosophy to develop his own theory of natural law, arguing that accountability to God is an essential element in morality. He challenged the idea of the divine right of kings, which was common in England at the time. He argued instead that the moral and political obligations of the ruled depend on their consent to submit to the rulers. [31] Some decades later, in England, John Locke expanded on this idea. His political philosophy was built on the idea that the separation of the ruled and the rulers is necessary for public accountability to take place. [32] Locke was one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment, and this influence was borne out in the changes that occurred at the end of the 17th century. The English Bill of Rights of 1698 proscribed royal intervention in parliament and many of the other royal prerogatives previously enjoyed by the crown. [33] This bill, the Magna Carta, and Locke's ideas of republicanism and liberalism became foundations for the 1791 United States Bill of Rights, which guaranteed individual rights as well as limitations on federal and state governments. [34] Governments throughout the Western world have continued on this trajectory, leading to the systems of accountability in place around the world today.

The idea that all members of a society, including its leaders, should be governed by one set of laws was foundational to the development of Western law and governments. It highlighted the need for systems of accountability which would apply to all. This concept has been applied more recently to organisations, as leaders seek to make themselves accountable to those that they lead in order to create trust and cooperation. It is increasingly being acknowledged that accountability starts at the top—it's a leader’s job to take responsibility for their own actions, to hold their team members accountable, and to show them how to hold each other accountable. [35]

The Codification of Law

Another essential element of the rule of law is that the laws must be publicly accessible in order for people to be accountable to them. The oldest known law code is the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu, dating to approximately 2100 BC, but arguably the most significant ancient code in the development of modern governance is that of Rome. Around 450 BC, Rome's principal laws were inscribed on twelve bronze tablets posted in the forum. This allowed the people to know their rights and the laws they were accountable to, and therefore to resist exploitation from the ruling class. [36] The primary source of law being a codified system of core legal principles was a distinctive feature of Roman law which continued through the Roman republic and empire. This is the basis of civil law systems operating in over 60 per cent of the world today. [37]

In the 6th century AD, the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I sponsored the collection of historical Roman laws and works of law, which were compiled into the Body of Civil Law. This corpus was given the force of law in its time. When it was rediscovered in the 11th century, it became the foundation for many modern law systems, such as the civil law system of Europe and the common law of England, and shaped many others. [38]

That laws are written down and made available remains an essential piece in Western political systems, but it has also been applied to organisations. For members of an organisation to be accountable to any set of rules, standards or expectations, they must know what these are and how they are applicable. [39] There has also been an increasing emphasis on the need for individuals to opt into any rules, as top-down enforcement is not conducive to optimum efficiency and effectiveness. [40] The emphasis in the field of leadership on the need for clear communication of expectations, effective motivation, and accountability builds on the same ideas that were behind the most ancient written codes of law.

Conclusion

The explosion of recent research into accountability for leaders and organisations is stimulating positive change. Changes to organisational structure have encouraged moral and responsible conduct at all levels. [41] The enforcement of accountability has restored public trust in and the social value of organisations. [42] Commercial and economic benefits have resulted from increasing corporate responsibility. [43] While the increasing calls for professional accountability might seem like a uniquely modern advancement, they are rooted in old ideas which have been developed, challenged, and championed throughout the history of the West. Like the ancient Greeks and Romans, we recognise the need for one set of rules which is made known and equally applied to all, including the most powerful.

References

[1] https://www.accountabilitycircle.org/concepts.html

[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rule-of-law

[3] Aristotle, Politics 3.16, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D3

[4] Cicero, On the Republic 3.22.33, https://www.attalus.org/translate/republic3.htmlhttps://www.attalus.org/translate/republic3.html

[5] https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction

[6] J Fernandez-Villaverde, ‘Magna Carta, the Rule of Law, and the Limits on Government,’ International Review of Law & Economics, vol. 47, 2016, p. 24.

[7] A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Eighth Edition, Macmillan & Co, London, 1924, p. 173.

[8] https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense4.htm

[9] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rule-law/?utm_source=BibblioRCM_Row

[10] D Worrall, Accountability Leadership: How Great Leaders Build a High Performance Culture of Accountability and Responsibility, 2013, https://library.ship.edu/c.php?g=21703&p=127132, pp. 2-4.

[11] Ibid., p. 73.

[12] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0225/c920782770d23668fb42d5019cb96443987f.pdf

[13] Worrall, Accountability Leadership, p. 14

[14] Aeschines 3.17, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Aeschin.+3+17&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0002

[15] J T Roberts, Accountability in Athenian Government, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1982, p. 6.

[16] Ibid., p. 9.

[17] Demosthenes 24.139, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Dem.+24+139&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0002

[18] Herodotus, Histories 3.80.2-3, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+3.80&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126/

[19] H Swain & M Everson, Aspects of Roman History 82BC – AD14: A Source-Based Approach, Routledge, New York, pp. 252, 257.

[20] Cicero, Against Verres, 1.1, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0018%3Atext%3DVer.

[21] J Plescia, ‘Judicial Accountability and Immunity in Roman Law,’ American Journal of Legal History, vol. 45, no. 1, 2001, pp. 51-70, doi: 10.2307/3185349.

[22] https://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/Roman/the%20Holy%20Roman%20Empire#Political

[23] G I Seidman, ‘The Origins of Accountability: Everything I Know About The Sovereign’s Immunity, I Learned from King Henry III,’ St. Louis University Law Journal, vol. 49, no. 2, 2005, pp. 39-43.

[24] Ibid., p. 46.

[25] M Bovens, ‘Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism,’ West European Politics, vol. 33, no. 5, doi: 10.1080/01402382.2010.486119, p. 951.

[26] J Sabapathy, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England 1170-1300, Oxford Scholarship Online, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645909.001.000, pp. 223-231.

[27] G I Seidman, ‘The Origins of Accountability: Everything I Know About The Sovereign’s Immunity, I Learned from King Henry III,’ St. Louis University Law Journal, vol. 49, no. 2, 2005, p. 16.

[28] Ibid., p. 42.

[29] Ibid., p. 44.

[30] Ibid., pp. 65-66.

[31] https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

[32] S I Lindberg, ‘Mapping Accountability: the Core Concept and its Subtypes,’ International Review of Administrative Scienes, vol. 79, no. 2, 2013, p. 202.

[33] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-British-history

[34] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution

[35] Worrall, Leadership Accountability, pp. 14-16.

[36] K L Raybould, The Modern Day Roman Republic: The Correlation of the Roman Republic and the United States of America, PhD thesis, Liberty University, Virginia, 2012, pp. 18-19.

[37] https://dailyhistory.org/How_has_ancient_Rome_influenced_European_law%3F#cite_note-1

[38] https://europeanconservative.com/2019/05/the-contribution-of-roman-law-to-modern-legal-systems/

[39] S Darwall, The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 100-101.

[40] M Bovens, The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, p. 154.

[41] Ibid., p. 217.

[42] D Vriens, E Vosselman & C Gross, ‘Public Professional Accountability: A Conditional Approach, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 153, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10551-016-3345-x, pp. 1179-1189.

[43] D Crowther & N Capaldi, ‘The Maturing of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Developmental Process,’ in The Ashgate Companion to Corporate Social Responsibility, Routledge, 2020. doi: 10.4324/9781315612843, p. 29.