As I sit here on a Sunday morning at 10 am, I began thinking about accountability.  Why did that come to my mind when I was planning to write about Walt Minnick?  It seems neither the Idaho Statesman nor Idaho Press Tribune has yet been delivered today.  Other than on Monday, the first day of “making history,” I have had one of the papers – yes, I subscribe to both –delivered late.  I guess everything is perfect today as both papers are late.  This is partially my fault.  I am a newspaper junkie.  Sometimes I feel like Will Rogers, “All I know is what I read in the papers.”  So, how come there was no day this week that I received both papers on time?  Who is responsible?  These are similar questions that are often asked of government, often by the news media.

Why is it so hard to tell who is responsible for actions, good or bad, of government?  Most of the reason can be traced back to the system of government we have in this country.  A by-product of a desire to ensure that government would not oppress the people is a lack of accountability.  Our federal system of government divides responsibility between a central or national government and our semi-autonomous state governments.  On both levels, power is shared by three branches of government.  So, when the economy is underperforming, our education system is broken or the roads are in need of repair, where should we assign blame?  Is it the president, Congress, the governor or the state legislature?  Throw in the division of state government into counties, cities and special districts and the problem of accountability is almost impossible to solve.  Overlapping all of these institutional structures is the party system.  Unless there is clear one-party control on every level and in each branch, responsibility can be elusive.

Why is accountability so important?  If a voter does not know who to blame or credit for events, how is he or she supposed to make a decision?  Do I vote for the incumbent or challenger, the Republican or the Democrat?  Our system makes accountability difficult.  In the 1950’s, the American Political Science Association called for a move to responsible party government.  In essence, the organization wanted the United States to be more like a parliamentary government within a unitary system.  Why is such a system more accountable?

A parliamentary system centralizes power and accountability in the political parties and the legislature.  The majority party, or parties if none has a majority, chooses the prime minister, who is the head of the executive branch as much as there is a separate branch in such a system.  The executive is guaranteed to have a majority of party supporters in the legislature and the legislature is guaranteed to have their choice as the executive.  If this parliamentary system is combined with a unitary system (i.e. no separate levels of government such as states or provinces), accountability is quite simple.  When the government presides over a policy that disappoints the public, it is unambiguously clear who is responsible.  Now this is the ideal of parliamentary government.  Having anomalies, some of which are quite common depending upon the nation, like coalition governments and minority governments, make parliamentary governments less than exemplars for accountability.

I am not advocating a unitary parliamentary government for our country.  We have too much history, geography and distain for political parties to make such a system logical for the United States.  I do believe such a system does provide greater accountability but potentially at the loss of some protection from government oppression of the electorate.

So what about my newspapers?  Who is responsible?  The media are quick to criticize government officials for mistakes and demand someone take responsibility.  At best, we get someone in government stating, “I take full responsibility for this situation.”  What does that mean, though?  In my classes, if you turn a paper in late, your grade is lowered, regardless of the reason.  What punishment is meted out to government officials or newspaper editors and publishers for not getting their work done on time?

The publishers of the two papers, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Weaver, “exchanged a high-five” after the presses began for the first time last Sunday.  Where are they now?  Vicki Holbrook of the Press Tribune apologized in her Thursday paper for the late delivery problems.  She claims everything possible is being done to solve the problem but whose job is it to make sure this happens?  The newspapers are quick to criticize specific legislators for poorly crafted bills, governors for a lack of oversight of their agencies, specific members of Congress for wasteful spending and the president for declaring a war over when the worse part still laid ahead.  Who is going to have to resign because the readers have gone a week without consistently prompt deliveries?  It is seldom presidents (either of the nation or of banks) or publishers who have to suffer the consequences for poor performance.  

Last Sunday, Executive Editor of the Idaho Statesman Vicki Gowler stated triumphantly that, “We're proud to say we have our lowest complaint rate for newspaper delivery in years.”  Oops.  At least she didn’t say, “Mission Accomplished.”

Go Yotes.

Dr. Jasper M. LiCalzi
Professor and Chair
Department of Political Economy
The College of Idaho