To give ‘accountability’ a chance to succeed we need to reclaim what it actually means.

Why does the sound of ‘accountability’ ring so flat when it is uttered in Aid circles? Why is it often considered to be yet another meaningless buzzword? What happened to the sense of justice the word alludes to? Who sanitized its purpose?

It is a brazen and an open fact — that when you look closely — accountability in the aid sector bears little true resemblance to its definition.

In line with definitions elsewhere (See here on the definition of accountable and this on accountability culture), the Core Humanitarian Standard use the following:

“Accountability: the process of using power responsibly, taking account of, and being held accountable by, different stakeholders, and primarily those who are affected by the exercise of such power.” (CHS p.19)

The core of this sentence is: being held accountable. Arguably, it is THE essential feature of accountability and yet it is THE aspect that hides in plain sight in every ‘AAP’ job listing, every organisational accountability framework, every reporting requirement. Because the pre-requisite to hold to account is the power to do so. And this power doesn’t exist, it has never been afforded or developed, meaning any efforts to be truly accountable, to achieve accountability, will…