Thursday, May 3, 2012

2012 - Question #11 – short answer/concept question



(A)          What do political scientists mean by accountability?
(B)          Describe briefly the primary means of ensuring accountability in Russia.


See pp. 37 and 74-81 in What You Need to Know


Posted by at
Labels: ,

3 comments:

Ken Wedding said...

This heavenly response [inside joke] to Question 11 arrived from the ether-net:

"Accountability is a value political institutions are supposed to be ensured of. Rather than focusing on the clarity of the government and how things are carried out and systemized, political accountability is focused on the efficiency of meeting people’s needs or function as a government with its own purpose disregarding the needs of the people.

"Political accountability in Russia is mainly forged with a reasonable form of control. Russia is in its golden age with economic flourishements. Although there are some aware of political control Kremlin puts on the media, as long as Russian government can earn its support and constantly legitimize themselves as long as they are flourishing."

=================
Here are a couple definitions of accountability:

accountability, def. (from p. 37 of What You Need to Know)

"the concept that government officials are responsible to and serve at the pleasure of constituents or elected officials (and that they may be removed from office by those electors or officials)"

accountability, def. (from p. 448, Intro to Comp. Politics, Kesselman, et al.)

"A government's responsibility to its population, usually by periodic popular elections, transparent fiscal practices, and by parliament's having the power to dismiss the government by passing a motion of no confidence." [There's a sentence the editor missed.]


So a response to part A should include the idea that elected and hired (bureaucratic) government officials are responsible to the citizenry and can be removed by political means if they are irresponsible or if their actions displease most voters.

Is either of those ideas in the submitted response? The first sentence is an assertion that political institutions should be accountable. No hint of meaning. The second sentence asserts that accountability efficiently meets the needs of the people "or function[s] as a government with its own purpose disregarding the needs of the people."

I can't make any sense out of those sentences.

Part B asks how accountability is primarily ensured in Russia. The rubric says that the primary means are elections of legislators and executives. Credit could also be given for a description of the limited role that courts have in "persuading" governments to follow the rule of law.

Part B of this response seems to be saying [it's not clear] that control of the media is the primary means of ensuring accountability. That seems to suggest that controlling what citizens know about government actions ensures accountability. But that is nearly opposite the idea of transparency emphasized in the definition from the Kesselman text.

Part A: 0 out of 1 point
Part B: 0 out of 2 points

May 8, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Ken Wedding said...

Anonymous left this response to this question:

"Political scientists refer to accountability as the concept that government officials are responsible to the law and elected officials in political institutions.

"Russia’s government ensures accountability by limiting the term of the president to two-terms, but in 2004 this was eliminated by Putin’s change of policy in putting the presidency to three-terms.

"The Duma takes part in approving the presidential cabinet and the prime minister, although the legislative branch is quite limited in power because they have no way to have a “vote of no confidence” against the prime minister. The president has the power to dissolve the Duma, call for new elections, and veto actions from the legislature. The Duma can reject the president’s choice for prime minister up to three times; after this the president can dissolve the Duma and call for new elections.The bicameral legislature, or the Federal Assembly has power to delay legislation only."
======================
The definition in this response is good enough to earn a point, because the question did not specify to whom the concept of accountability applied. Responsibility to the law and elected officials are important parts and the neglect of responsibility to the electorate is not a notable omission.

The second part of the response begins well by identifying term limits as a primary means of ensuring accountability in Russia.

However, then things go off the rails a bit. The assertion is undermined by identifying "Putin's change of policy," which was actually a constitutional amendment. (It didn't allow three terms, it allowed two consecutive 6-year terms.)

The response goes on to discuss the legislature and its lack of power. Lack of power ensures accountability? That's a difficult argument to understand.

The question asks responders to "describe the primary means of ensuring accountability," but all this response does is identify term limits on the president and then asserts that this means of ensuring accountability was "eliminated."

This response earns 1 out of 3 points.

Remember, DO NOT undermine your argument/assertion. READ what you have written. If you find ideas in conflict, cross out one of them.

Don't get tempted (as I suspect Anonymous was) to say everything you can think of about the topic and hope that some of it is relevant. (Exam readers call these "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" responses as "data dumps." They rarely earn many points.)

The question asks for a description. Describe.

May 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Ken Wedding said...

From the anonymity of the Internet:

"Political accountability is a trait in which the government or branches of the government are held answerable to different institutions of groups for the exercise of their power.

"Despite the relatively unchecked power enjoyed by the Russian Federal government, it is held in check by several systems. Because its President, its highest political office, is directly elected through universal suffrage, the state itself is held accountable to the people in some ways, as its power is derived and maintained through their support.

"The separation of posts between the head of state (President) and the head of government (Prime Minister) also allows greater accountability through checks and balances among different branches of the government, and the fact that the head of government (prime minister) and his cabinet are a part of the legislature that is beholden to the Duma increases their accountability."
====================

Oh, this definition is so close. "Answerable" is a good, if vague, synonym. But to whom? "… different institutions of groups…" is awfully vague. To the armed services? To the religious leaders? To the bankers? We need to see that people with public authority and power are answerable to the law, the elected leaders, or the public.

The description of the means of ensuring accountability is pretty good. Elections and some division of powers is right on. However, the premier and the cabinet are NOT part of the Duma. They are approved by the Duma, but unlike the British model, they are not part of the legislature.

So this response earns 1 point for a partially accurate description of the means of ensuring accountability.

May 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)