ABSTRACT
Apart from the differences in the scope of political accountability, scholars differ very widely about what should be the defining features of political accountability. For example, Andreas Schedler defines accountability as a political relationship in which A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s past or future actions and decisions, to justify them and to suffer punishment.5 This definition accentuates three elements for political accountability: information, justification and punishment. But Schedler goes on to suggest that these three core elements are only usual, but not necessary features. ‘Information, justification and punishment are continuous variables that show up to different degrees with varying mixes and emphases. Even if one or two of them are missing’, says Schedler, ‘we may still legitimately speak of acts of accountability’.6 With Schedler’s conceptualization, the term ‘accountability’ is closer to its literal meaning of ‘answerability’, because punishment does not necessarily follow after an account has been rendered.
