Doing Civil Society-Driven Social Accountability in a Disaster Context: Evidence from Post-Earthquake Nepal

Abstract

While accountability has gained significant traction within the contemporary discourse on disaster governance, what it means and takes to be ‘doing accountability’ in promoting democratic governance of disasters remain scantly understood.<em> </em>Using the concept of social accountability and drawing on an ethnographic case study of a civil society-led accountability campaign in post-earthquake Nepal (the Mobile Citizen Help Desk, or MCHD), this article shows how MCHD sought to amplify local voices regarding failures in aid delivery and expanded opportunities for dialogue between disaster-affected communities and local powerholders. It highlights the potential of such initiative in safeguarding and promoting the rights of disaster-affected communities, while also helping overcome the post-disaster environment of mistrust, unfounded allegations and power inequalities. The article also draws attention to the challenges facing such an initiative. It shows that the effectiveness of such efforts in translating citizens’ voices into state response was undermined by: (i) its incorporation into a donor-driven humanitarian accountability initiative, in which generating and reporting feedback to donors proved more pressing than amplifying citizen voice; and (ii) unclear structures of governance at the local level of service delivery, which impeded the civil society actors’ aim to engage with ‘the right authority.’ The article draws attention to the political potential of social accountability in a post-disaster context, while also raising caution that such activism is unlikely to succeed in holding powerholders to account in the absence of supportive national bureaucratic and international aid structures.

How effectively are social accountability mechanisms being applied in mental health services within the newly federalized health system of Nepal? A multi-stakeholder qualitative study

“…Rooted in the Constitution of Nepal, some efforts have been made to promote political commitment to more accountable and transparent governance. However, the attitudes of citizens and duty-bearers towards each other reflected the negative with entrenched power structures, creating an environment of distrust [ 41 ]. This resulted in perpetuation of the previously weak roles of both citizens and duty-bearers in the application of social accountability mechanisms to promote and improve mental health services.…”

The promises and pitfalls of disaster aid platforms: a case study of Lebanon’s 3RF

“…The 3RF secretariat was supposed to publish a website that only came to existence as we were writing this paper, over two years after the establishment of the platform. Thus, the 3RF's institutional architecture did not establish effective modalities for CSOs to fulfill their watchdog roles and uphold accountability and transparency, such as a citizen engagement platform or grievance reporting mechanisms that are usually recommended by experts (Daly and Brassard, 2011;Haigh et al, 2019;Dhungana, 2020). These shortcomings significantly constrained good governance, monitoring and progress reporting and hence effective processes of participation.…”

Reviewing Accountability Mechanisms in Nepal’s 2015 Earthquake Reconstruction

“…Although a reconstruction committee was formed at the community level, the participation of the most vulnerable people was limited. The research revealed that attempts made after the earthquake to translate citizens' voices into state responses were ineffective (Dhungana, 2020).…”