I have been advancing the view that transparency is the hallmark of transformational leadership and accountability is its touchstone. In my book, Leadership Re-Imagination: A Primer of Principles and Practices, I discussed the notion of mutual accountability and argued that organisations that excel are typically those in which the people who seek to hold others accountable, and whose job it is to hold others accountable, see themselves as being accountable. The result is that these organisations perform at a high standard, as everyone is conscious that others may, or will, take an interest in their performance.

In discussing the principles of mutual accountability I cited the concept of aijava, which is one of the 10 duties of rulers (leaders), according to Buddha. Aijava, according to Buddha, means “not fearing some and favouring others”. I suggested, therefore, that aijava implies mutual accountability and is related to integrity. The root of the word integrity, is ‘integrate’, and it’s a synonym of ‘sound’ or ‘solid’. When used to describe a structure or the conduct of a leader, integrity means being free from cracks, gaps, and hollowness.Thus, for example, there would be hollowness (cracks) in the utterances of a leader who seeks to hold others accountable but who him/herself is not willing to be held accountable.

If we accept that mutual accountability is related to integrity, and means that leaders and followers submit to each other, we need to agree on what being accountable means. I define being accountable as a mindset that informs behaviour and leadership, resulting in the taking of decisions and the execution of actions in ways that are consistent with standards of: ethics, lawfulness, transparency, regard for others, and producing positive results efficiently with a commitment to the higher good, and openness to dialogue geared towards continuous improvement.

Accountability and governance

There were several instances during 2016 in which this issue of accountability became front and centre. These include:

(a) The People’s National Party’s (PNP) interpretation of the expectation that it should participate in the political debates ahead of the February 25, 2016 General Election;

(b) The question of whether the PNP had a duty to provide full disclosure over campaign funds;

(c) The issue of whether all parliamentarians should publish their filings with the Integrity Commission;

(d) The details regarding why the contracts of some public servants were not renewed;

(e) The debate over whether The University of the West Indies had a duty to appear before the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee; and

(f) The processes by which the Government embarked on the $600-million de-bushing programme.

It is not overly simplistic to suggest that in a democracy, accountability is the foot soldier or handmaid of effective governance. The esteem in which those who hold public office are held is a function of how accountable they are, or are perceived to be. Accountability is expressed, in part, as transparency. Secrecy in the operations of public affairs is the antithesis of accountability and good governance. But in a fledgling democracy like ours, accountability is a work in progress and like a tender plant,any manifestation of it must be nurtured and encouraged in order that it may spread and affect other areas of the body politic.

In praise of an act of accountability

While affirming that accountability is a work in progress, and thus accepting that we have some distance to go before we can truly claim that, as a country, our affairs are conducted with the highest levels of transparency and accountability, I am moved to share a story of how a set of public officials, including some of the most senior officials, displayed a level of accountability and transparency which could or should become a model of how issues of public interest are addressed.

In about late July, a colleague called me to say she was exploring job opportunities and that she had seen advertisements for positions at the National Youth Service (NYS) and planned to use me as a reference and wanted to know if I know anybody at the NYS. I told her I was not aware of who was there and whether I knew them, whereupon she shared some names. Mindful of the sensitivity of the employment environment in government, I called one of the persons she mentioned, who is a board member, and inquired whether the board would be taking political affiliation into account when filling the posts. I made this query even though I was not aware of this colleague’s political affiliation. The board member sounded somewhat equivocal in his response to my question. He did not say emphatically that no political considerations would be there, he simply said (something to the effect) “I don’t know about that.”

The following Sunday I saw the advertisement in the newspapers inviting applicants for nine senior management posts. I was taken aback that there could be so many vacant senior posts at an agency that had been around for so many years, and wondered whether house-cleaning was taking place. Having received what I considered to have been an equivocal response to my query from the board member and now seeing all these vacant posts, I wrote the prime minister (copying the Minister of Education under whose portfolio the NYS is assigned) seeking clarification as to what was taking place at the NYS.

Later that Sunday afternoon I missed a call from a number that I did not know. When I returned the call it was a member of the NYS board. The prime minister had forwarded my queries. We spoke for almost an hour. Essentially I understood that for three of the posts the holders were past the retirement age, or were not interested in continuing with the organisation, or were unable to continue due to ill health. The six other posts had been recently approved (before the February 25 General Election) by the Ministry of Finance and were being filled for the first time. I received unqualified assurance that political considerations would not influence the selection for the posts.

Learning from good practice

There have been various situations in which members of the public, including those of us who write opinion pieces, have expressed concern about the level of transparency and accountability in government. This story of the NYS stands, in my considered opinion, as a good example of responsible stewardship, responsiveness, and regard for the concerns of a citizen. There may be other occasions in the future when the NYS board may be faced with issues of transparency. The board may look at this situation as one in which leadership showed accountability. Neither the prime minister nor the minister of education owed me personally an explanation — beyond their own belief in being held accountable. The steps the prime minister took to ensure that I received a response demonstrated accountability. This is commendable and a helpful reference point for all public servants, including Cabinet ministers.

The facts of this case may reasonably be described as relatively harmless. The facts suggest that the NYS had not engaged in any unseemly act. But I took note of the invitation extended at the end of the conversation that I should feel free to visit the NYS at any time and to engage on any matter in which I might have an interest. Thus, there is the potential that, even if uncomfortable facts were to arise, the leadership of the NYS is willing to remain faithful to the principles that informed its handling of this matter.

The recent controversial $600-million de-bushing programme which has understandably evoked public interest remains unresolved, and it is expected that both the contractor general and the political ombudsman will provide reports on this matter. This NYS story of disclosure, which was sanctioned no doubt by the prime minister, holds lessons on how the further facts in this $600-million de-bushing programme may be handled. We wait to hear the facts of that matter which, regardless of what they are, are the public’s right to know.

Small seeds grow into big trees. If this NYS story of full disclosure and openness to dialogue were to become the norm, then we could witness a faster maturing of our culture of accountability. I trust that the year 2017, which promises to be an exciting year politically, will be a year in which we see more examples of accountability as displayed by the leadership of the NYS. The NYS may have set a standard for itself that it will have to work hard to maintain, but if so, that is a very good thing. May this small seed grow!

Dr Canute Thompson is a certified management consultant and lecturer in educational policy, planning, and leadership at the School of Education, The University of the West Indies. He is also co-founder of the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative and author of three books on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or canutethompson1@gmail.com.