Accountability and the Limits of Elections

Fourth Quarter 1998

Elections provide the occasion for citizens to say Yes or No to incumbents and challengers. At least that's the democratic doctrine. Yet incumbents are returned to office over 90 percent of the time even though a high percentage of citizens regularly express disappointment with politics and disgust with politicians. How can that be?

Political accountability, it appears, requires more than regular elections. At this time in American life that may lead you to think of special prosecutors and impeachment proceedings in Congress. Yet there is another important accountability structure that Americans know little about.

Consider the similarities and differences between Britain's prime minister and our president. Many journalists have observed that Britain's Labor-Party leader Tony Blair adopted Bill Clinton's style and approach in the last election. Indeed, there are many similarities between the two men and their executive offices. Yet there is a very important difference. Tony Blair first had to win the leadership of his party before he could run for prime minister. And once elected, if he were to find himself in the predicament Bill Clinton is now in, his party would demand his resignation. That would, in turn, lead to the party's selection of a new leader and to the calling of a new parliamentary election, at which time voters would again have the opportunity to judge among the leaders and programs of competing parties.

The difference is that in Britain and most other democracies there is an important accountability structure missing from American politics. It is the national political party with strong internal governance that allows it to change its leadership and discipline its members both before and after elections.

We do it backwards. Anyone can run for president. And the winner of the election is then considered the party leader even if the position carries little weight inside the party. Democratic members of Congress do not bear responsibility for Bill Clinton nor do they have any obligation to stick by him if it looks like he will hurt their own election campaigns. They can encourage him to resign or join Republicans in an impeachment process. But they will make their decisions as members of Congress, not as Democrats with the authority to hold their party leaders accountable.

Furthermore, in the absence of party accountability, public officials, including members of Congress, the president, and special prosecutors, all seek to use the media to gauge or manipulate public opinion to justify their actions. Because elections connect politicians only marginally with the public, many of them try to fulfill their governing responsibility by reading opinion polls rather than by exercising judgment appropriate to their legislative or executive offices of responsibility.

It's time for a change. Elections are not sufficient to hold politicians accountable. We need political parties that can act quickly and with authority to discipline their leaders and members. Then voters will better be able to hold the parties and politicians accountable, governments will be better able to govern, the judicial system can concentrate on its original purpose, and the media can return to the role of conveying information and helping citizens assess important issues.

—The Editors