Role of Political Institutions in Regulating Legislative Accountability and Transparency
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29070/gvvd8232Keywords:
Legislative Accountability, Transparency, Political Institutions, Parliamentary Oversight, Independent Regulatory Bodies, Judicial Review, Right to Information (RTI), Citizen Participation, Democratic Governance, IndiaAbstract
Legislative accountability and transparency are crucial to democratic governance and ensure that elected representatives are responsible, honourable, follow the rule of law, and are accountable to the people. Political institutions, such as parliaments, independent regulatory institutions, judicial institutions, and anti-corruption institutions, are the institutional framework for enforcing these principles. This paper deals with how the redistribution of institutional design, mechanisms of oversight, and the role of citizens, together determine accountability and transparency of legislators, focusing on India and the lessons drawn from global practices. Using a qualitative approach, combining document analysis, case studies and comparative benchmarking, the study identifies the roles (and challenges) of parliamentary committees, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Election Commission, Lokpal, and the Right to Information Act in improving oversight. Findings show that despite a robust framework offered by formal mechanisms, institutional autonomy, the ability to enforce, and strong civic engagement are crucial for the effectiveness of implementation. The study highlights the importance of synergy between institutional and participatory modes of governance as a way to increase the transparency, discourage corruption, and promote ethical, responsive and accountable democratic practices.
Downloads
References
1. Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2014). Indignation or resignation: The implications of transparency for societal accountability. Governance, 27(2), 291-320.
2. Bovens, M. (2006). Analysing and assessing public accountability: A conceptual framework.
3. Florini, A. (2007). The right to know: transparency for an open world. Columbia University Press.
4. Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in practice, 17(4-5), 663-671.
5. Fung, A. (2009). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy.2. Literature Review
6. JG, M., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. The Organisational Basis of Politics New York.
7. Lindstedt, C., & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International political science review, 31(3), 301-322.
8. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge Univ Pr.
9. Pantawane, J., & Butle, A. (2024). right to information and good governance: a study of the impact of rti on transparency and accountability in indian administration. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5(1), 1176–1185. https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.4035
10. Pathak, A. (2025). Political Accountability and Transparency: Assessing Anti-Corruption Measures in Democratic Institutions. International Journal of Research in Political Science and Public Administration p-ISSN 3117-5902 e-ISSN 3117-5910, 1(01), 20-29.
11. Pelizzo, R., & Stapenhurst, F. (2013a). Parliamentary oversight tools: A comparative analysis. Routledge.
12. Pelizzo, R., & Stapenhurst, F. (2013b). Government accountability and legislative oversight. Routledge.
13. Sethuraman, V. (2023). Transparency and Accountability: Two Significant Political Reforms of Twenty-First Century in India. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Change (pp. 1-12). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
This work is licensed under a 