Introduction
Government systems have always had trouble striking a balance between corruption and accountability. A chronic societal evil that affects the whole world is corruption. To preserve openness, honesty, and public trust, innovative solutions to this ongoing political and administrative problem are required. Scholars, policymakers, and communities throughout the globe have investigated the intricate link between accountability and corruption. Accountability is the cornerstone of a robust government system because it ties the public and elected officials to openness, responsibility, and unwavering integrity in their sacred duties. Corruption corrupts public service by illicit activity and personal gain, undermining effective government. Public choice theory reduces corruption and enhances government. This theory emphasizes harmonizing individual desires with communal goals and is based on the complex relationship between economics and politics. Public choice theory aids in our understanding of governance systems by extending rational choice theory to public decision-making processes. It helps us assess how these systems should be set up to minimize corruption and encourage accountability. Through the prism of public choice theory, the study explores the role that democratic decision-making and judicial review play in combating corruption and promoting accountability.
Understanding Accountability and Corruption
Since accountability establishes moral behaviour and guarantees that those in positions of authority answer to the governed, it is a crucial tool for governance. The obligation imposed on leaders and institutions to carefully record their choices, actions, and use of resources while maintaining a commitment to the greater good is known as accountability.[1] The legitimacy of a government system depends on this cornerstone. The idea is so intricate that it encompasses the vertical, horizontal, and diagonal planes. The intricate vertical dimension is intricately linked to the diverse concept of duty, especially concerning public servants and their unwavering devotion to the public good. Public participation, representation, and electoral procedures provide the people a voice in decision-making and an opportunity to promote openness.[2] The several checks and balances in our beloved government institutions are examined in the horizontal dimension. To ensure accountability, the diagonal dimension also highlights the need for independent institutions such as courts, auditing firms, and ombudsmen.
Contrarily, corruption undermines government structures and is the opposite of accountability.[3] Several evil practices may be classified as corruption, such as bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, and cronyism; all stem from the blatant abuse of authority for one’s benefit. The result of corruption is capture, which distorts a public process to achieve personal gain. The term “capture” refers to the co-optation of a regulatory process or institution by the people it is meant to supervise and control, turning it into their “instrument” or “ally.”[4] According to this idea, the government functions as a market where different players compete with one another to achieve their own goals and maximize their “private” gains, even at the price of the “common good.” Because corruption erodes public trust and the legitimacy of the government, it has a broad range of detrimental repercussions on governance. People become disillusioned, politically indifferent, and less engaged in civic life when they believe that individuals in positions of power are involved in unethical behaviour. The slow deterioration of trust might seriously compromise the foundational elements that support a stable and functional society. Two approaches have been proposed to address the issue of capture: deregulation, which is based on the concept of rent-seeking and the collective action problem, and enhanced institutional design and increased oversight, which advocate for a more formalized institutional mandate through the implementation of stricter and more detailed rules and procedures. This aims to bring into check discretion and prevent the abuse of power, as well as mitigate the influence of biases on decision-making processes.
Public Choice Theory
The public choice theory was born from the in-depth study of the complex relationships between taxes and public expenditure. This theory is based on the complex interaction between political science and economics, which offers a variety of perspectives for examining the complex and always-changing dynamics of government.[5] It takes the same idea that economists use to closely examine how people behave in a dynamic marketplace and applies it to the intricate and subtle domain of group decision-making. Economists examine people’s intricate behaviours in the dynamic market using the same assumption as this theory. It also pertains to people’s complex and diverse behaviours in collective decision making its significant and provocative importance. This is predicated on the idea that individuals are mostly driven by their unpredictable peculiarities. Regardless of one’s position as an employer, employee, or customer, self-interest drives market behaviour, contrary to the widespread misconception that individuals take other people’s welfare into account when making choices. Nevertheless, whether they are bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, or voters, their main motivation is self-interest.
Several key ideas for accountability and the prevention of corruption are found in public choice theory, and these include Rational Self-Interest: According to public choice theory, bureaucrats and politicians act in their well-considered self-interest. Maximizing their usefulness is their ultimate goal, which may include achieving political or financial success. This self-serving tendency could encourage dishonest conduct if left unchecked. Legislators prioritize distributing other people’s riches above the “public interest,” in contrast to what was expected. About the idea of incentives in decision-making, Downs said that the average voter is not politically knowledgeable, which may be a reasonable argument.[6] Election outcomes are significant, yet it is uncommon for one vote to decide the outcome. Voting intelligently is thus pointless since there is no way for the voter to forecast the election result. As a result, the diligent voter may not be content to spend time following and comprehending the intricate issues at hand. The theory of public choice highlights the significant influence of incentives on decision-makers. Encouraging individuals to act in ways that benefit society and prohibiting unethical behaviour are key components of transparency and accountability in government. Additionally, the Public Choice theory’s principle of Collective Decision-Making highlights the dangers and complications associated with merging individual preferences to formulate public policy, as highlighted by public choice theory. Comprehending these intricate connections is crucial for developing governance instruments that encourage responsibility and diminish unethical behaviour. Lastly, the public choice theory sheds light on the phenomenon known as “rent-seeking behavior,” in which people or interest groups, motivated by irrational impulses, deplete vital resources in an unrelenting search for favourable treatment or large rents from the all-powerful government. This strange behaviour might distort the distribution of resources and erode accountability. It includes “undeserved” income, which is money earned via their capacity to take advantage of a monopoly in the market or a legal framework that allows them to regulate who can access certain items rather than from a single contribution.[7] Economic theory holds that even while the desire to collect rent may be morally or politically questionable, it makes perfect sense economically for each person.[8]
Democratic Decision-Making and its Role in Governance
The foundation of governance is the democratic process of decision-making. It stands for representation, diversity, and cooperative decision-making. The mysterious people have the enigmatic power to govern in democratic systems because they elect representatives to act on their behalf. This fascinating idea gave rise to several mysterious forms of representative democracy, which maintain mysterious accountability under mysterious governance. Because democracy offers the people the ability to form and influence the laws, policies, and acts that comprise their government, it is essential to understand the complex link between democracy and governance. Three elements comprise the process: public participation, representation, and elections. These elements are meant to provide an air of opacity and inscrutability while symbolizing the people’s evasive intentions. Individuals can exercise their unalienable right to vote for their esteemed representatives, who subsequently deliberate and make consequential choices on their behalf.
Ensuring accountability through democratic decision-making is not without its challenges and limitations. These include voter apathy, when citizens turn away from the democratic process out of disillusionment, mistrust of political institutions, and the belief that their vote is meaningless. Election fraud, which includes techniques like vote manipulation and voter suppression, is another problem. It has posed a serious threat to democratic accountability for many years. Typically, it taints the results’ validity and compromises the elected officials’ responsibility.[9] Polarization is another obstacle that prevents democratic institutions from promoting accountability. Partisan interests sometimes gain primacy in highly divided political debate, making it difficult to reach a compromise and keep the public interest front and centre.
Even while democratic decision-making greatly enhances accountability, it has drawbacks and restrictions. According to Overeem, democracy may be sluggish and ineffective, and the majority’s wishes may not always protect minority rights.[10] Additionally, critics draw attention to the possibility that demagoguery and populism might subvert democratic values.[11]
Judicial Review and its Significance in Governance
A key principle in governance is judicial review, which refers to the intricate procedure by which the judiciary of a nation carefully evaluates the legitimacy and constitutionality of laws, acts, and rulings proposed by the legislative and executive arms of government. It functions wonderfully as a complex and multifaceted structure, meticulously making sure that government initiatives mesh harmoniously with the fundamental ideas contained in the Constitution and the sacred precepts of the rule of law. Judicial review is very important because it is an essential defence against potential abuses of authority. By giving the court, an independent body, the power to evaluate the government’s efforts, it maintains the principles of responsibility, openness, and adherence to the law. Standing as an unbreakable cornerstone of democratic governance, judicial review’s enormous authority acts as an extremely powerful barrier against possible overreach by other branches of government. Any laws, rules, or executive orders found to violate the Constitution may be declared void by the court in situations when the legitimacy of governmental activities is questioned. Bewildering protection is created by not only hiding the possibility of power abuse but also steadfastly maintaining the core principle that all governmental actions must unquestionably adhere to the rule of law. The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803),[12] solidified the judicial review concept, confirming the judiciary’s immense authority to carefully interpret the constitution and carefully assess the legality of legislation. This case successfully created the legal foundation necessary for the court to carry out its essential function of stopping possible abuses of power by the other arms of government.
While judicial review is a crucial tool for guaranteeing accountability, it has challenges and complications. Opponents argue that when political influence or manipulation is applied to the court, it might compromise its integrity.[13] There are situations in which governments may attempt to deliberately choose judges who support their agendas, jeopardizing the impartiality and equity of the legal system. In addition, concerns about judicial activism surface when judges are seen to be overstepping their appointed authority and over-engaging in the policy-making process.[14] Critics argue that this might compromise democracy by giving unelected judges the power to make decisions that should be left to elected officials. Judges must be sufficiently protected from political pressure to preserve their objectivity in evaluating government activities, thus guaranteeing their crucial function in the legal system. In addition, proponents of judicial review argue that an independent judiciary is an essential component of democracy because it preserves the importance of legal norms and ensures that the executive branch operates within constitutional bounds.[15]
Although they function differently, judicial review and democratic decision-making are essential to promoting government transparency and preventing corruption. Democratic decision-making is a multifaceted process that involves public participation, representation, and elections. Together, these intricate components strengthen voter power and motivate elected officials to put the general good first. Openness is encouraged when leaders know the intense public scrutiny around their actions. Democratic regimes foster accountability by creating a clear line of communication between the governed and those in positions of power. In contrast, judicial review necessitates that the court evaluate the conduct of the other branches of government autonomously and impartially. Because of its jurisdiction, the court may assess whether government actions are lawful and constitutional. By closely examining and contesting legislative and executive actions, judicial review may prevent and rectify wrongdoing. Judicial review rulings and democratic decision-making can conflict because of legal or constitutional interpretations. It usually takes the knowledge of legal experts familiar with the law to navigate these complicated circumstances. A balance between judicial review and democratic decision-making is necessary to ensure accountability, efficient governance, and the avoidance of corruption.
Conclusion
This essay has analyzed the intricate dynamics between democratic decision-making and judicial review and their respective contributions to fostering accountability and curbing corruption in government. Throughout our examination, we have identified the inherent advantages and constraints associated with these fundamental systems. The significance of pushing for democratic decision-making and judicial review is of great magnitude and should not be underestimated. The complex interaction of these many processes, when effectively coordinated and strengthened with strong protections, establishes the foundation for responsible governance and prevents malicious wrongdoing. Through careful examination and thorough evaluation of various issues and critiques, we may significantly enhance the effectiveness of these processes in ensuring the integrity and security of governance systems.
Bibliography
Adesanya, Olusegun Victor. “Combating electoral fraud using the rights-base approach.” Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence 11, no. 2 (2020): 73-82.
Berggren, Niclas, and Christian Bjørnskov. “Corruption, judicial accountability and inequality: Unfair procedures may benefit the worst-off.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 170 (2020): 341-354.
Bianchi, Iolanda, Marina Pera, Laura Calvet-Mir, Sergio Villamayor, Mara Ferreri, Núria Reguero, and Sara Maestre Andrés. “Urban commons and the local state: co-production between enhancement and co-optation.” Territory, Politics, Governance (2022): 1-20.
Dixon, Rosalind. Responsive judicial review: Democracy and dysfunction in the modern age. Oxford University Press, 2022.
Downs, Anthony. “An economic theory of political action in a democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65, no. 2 (1957): 135-150.
Hughes, Robert C. “Regulatory entrepreneurship, fair competition, and obeying the law.” Journal of Business Ethics 181, no. 1 (2022): 249-261.
Huq, Aziz Z. “Judicial Independence and its Enemies.” Northwestern University Law Review 115 (2020).
Issacharoff, Samuel. “Judicial Review in Troubled Times: Stabilizing Democracy in a Second-Best World.” NCL Rev. 98 (2019): 1.
Kogelmann, Brian. “Public choice and political equality.” Wealth and power: Philosophical perspectives (2022): 67-84.
Lianos, Ioannis. “Competition law as a form of social regulation.” The Antitrust Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2020): 3-86.
Müller, Jan-Werner. “Democracy and disrespect.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 45, no. 9-10 (2019): 1208-1221.
Sant’Ambrogio, Michael, and Glen Staszewski. “Democratizing Rule Development.” Wash. UL Rev. 98 (2020): 793.
Smith, Graham. “Enhancing the legitimacy of offices for future generations: the case for public participation.” Political Studies 68, no. 4 (2020): 996-1013.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803).
[1] Sant’Ambrogio, Michael, and Glen Staszewski. “Democratizing Rule Development.” Wash. UL Rev. 98 (2020): 793.
[2] Smith, Graham. “Enhancing the legitimacy of offices for future generations: the case for public participation.” Political Studies 68, no. 4 (2020): 996-1013.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719885100, accessed on 4th November 2023.
[3] Berggren, Niclas, and Christian Bjørnskov. “Corruption, judicial accountability and inequality: Unfair procedures may benefit the worst-off.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 170 (2020): 341-354. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.12.010, accessed on 4th November 2023.
[4] Bianchi, Iolanda, Marina Pera, Laura Calvet-Mir, Sergio Villamayor, Mara Ferreri, Núria Reguero, and Sara Maestre Andrés. “Urban commons and the local state: co-production between enhancement and co-optation.” Territory, Politics, Governance (2022): 1-20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2022.2108491, accessed on 4th November 2023.
[5] Kogelmann, Brian. “Public choice and political equality.” Wealth and power: Philosophical perspectives (2022): 67-84.
[6] Downs, Anthony. “An economic theory of political action in a democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65, no. 2 (1957): 135-150.
[7] Lianos, Ioannis. “Competition law as a form of social regulation.” The Antitrust Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2020): 3-86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X19898626, accessed on 4th November 2023.
[8] Hughes, Robert C. “Regulatory entrepreneurship, fair competition, and obeying the law.” Journal of Business Ethics 181, no. 1 (2022): 249-261. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04932-y, accessed on 4th November 2023.
[9] Adesanya, Olusegun Victor. “Combating electoral fraud using the rights-base approach.” Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence 11, no. 2 (2020): 73-82.
[10] Dixon, Rosalind. Responsive judicial review: Democracy and dysfunction in the modern age. Oxford University Press, 2022.
[11] Müller, Jan-Werner. “Democracy and disrespect.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 45, no. 9-10 (2019): 1208-1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12400, accessed on 4th November 2023.
[12]Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803).
[13] Huq, Aziz Z. “Judicial Independence and its Enemies.” Northwestern University Law Review 115 (2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3570264, accessed on 4 November 2023.
[14] Kuh, Katrina Fischer. “The Legitimacy of Judicial Climate Engagement.” Ecology LQ 46 (2019):
[15] Issacharoff, Samuel. “Judicial Review in Troubled Times: Stabilizing Democracy in a Second-Best World.” NCL Rev. 98 (2019): 1.
write