{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009718172983479106, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.103448275862069, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reconceptualizing Political Accountability

The ambiguities surrounding the concept of democracy have resulted in a rather abstract listing of defining components and procedural norms. At the core of these procedures is the notion that effective administration requires elected officials to be accountable to the public. Periodic elections guarantee this accountability and the effectiveness of the democratic system depends on their regularity and character. The critical issues, however, are whether this basic mechanism for securing accountability can adequately compel governments and public officials to be responsive to the citizens and whether accountability thus conceived and exercised, provides a sufficiently comprehensive interpretation. This article argues that accountability matters and that for it to have some meaningful impact on social, political and economic outcomes, it cannot be limited to its traditional interpretation nor secured solely through the procedures of a conventional representative democracy.