In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

In a democracy, politicians and other policymakers are supposed to be accountable to voters.1 But even in a direct democracy, not everyone will agree on the best policy. Even after dialogue and discussion, citizens may disagree about what to do, so that states need acceptable procedures to resolve conflicts. Voting rules are one way to make public choices, but they may leave some citizens in a systematically disadvantaged position. The system may be fair in the technical sense of treating all voters equally, but substantively unfair if some are usually in the minority and seldom see their preferences prevail. Even if a policy is approved with no negative votes, it may have vastly disparate impacts on different groups of citizens and may lock in an unequal status quo. Problems of unfairness and injustice multiply in real polities where direct democracy is not feasible. Elected officials enact laws, and political appointees, civil servants, and judges implement the law. Any of these actors may make choices that are biased against certain groups, particularly those with few resources or weak political organization. Even if officials seek to be fair and evenhanded in administering the law, they may not have the necessary information to assess the needs of the population. To help remedy both of these problems, citizens need to be able to 71 3 Access to Government in Eastern Europe: Environmental Policymaking in Hungary susan rose-ackerman 1. This chapter is based on Rose-Ackerman (2005), which includes fuller citations and information about interviews conducted in the fall and winter of 2002–03 in Hungary. 03-7501-1 CH 3 10/28/08 5:20 PM Page 71 tell decisionmakers how they perceive public programs and to contribute their views on the benefits and costs of policies. Of course, the relative advantages of those with wealth and political organization can never be completely overcome in a democracy, but states can take steps to strengthen the voices of ordinary citizens and groups not affiliated with political parties. There are two sides to such efforts. On the one hand, state institutions must be organized to listen to and respond to the concerns of citizens and organized groups. On the other hand, the state should facilitate the organization of advocacy groups without interfering with the very independence that makes them valuable aids to improving the fairness and accountability of state program implementation. Achieving this type of citizen accountability presents a paradox. How can public bodies be responsive to the concerns of citizens, especially those from poor and disadvantaged groups, and yet remain insulated from improper influence ? How can they perform both as competent experts and as democratically responsible policymakers? This tension is a fundamental one in the public law of all democratic systems, but it has particular salience as the new democracies of central and eastern Europe try to create well-functioning states that are accountable to their citizens. These countries inherited top-heavy bureaucratic governments that were viewed with hostility and distrust by their citizens (Elster, Offe, and Preuss 1998). During the first decade of the transition to democracy, not much emphasis was given to issues of popular control outside of the electoral process. I argue that the relative neglect of that aspect of democratic consolidation has been costly for countries making a transition from socialism and ought to receive greater emphasis as the transition proceeds. The costs I have in mind are not primarily economic; they are of two interrelated kinds. The first is an overall disillusionment and distrust of the state that can undermine the acceptability of democratic government to its citizens (Elster, Offe, and Preuss 1998; Howard 2003). The second is a lack of competence and fairness in carrying out public programs. In short, the problems for democratic functioning are not just popular attitudes toward government but also include the actual, concrete performance of the state in carrying out its day-to-day business of implementing the law. What steps can countries take that want to broaden the voices heard by policymakers in government ministries and to enhance the accountability of government processes to citizens, including those at the bottom of the economic and social ladder? I discuss a two-sided strategy for enhancing the fairness and transparency of executive-branch policymaking. The first is an administrative process that is transparent and invites input from a wide range of interested individuals, not just preapproved “stakeholders.” The integrity of that process would be subject to judicial oversight. The second includes measures to...

Share