Electoral accountability is a distinctively democratic form of accountability. Since officials typically seek reelection or election to a higher office, this potential sanction is regarded as a powerful inducement for them to explain their actions to electorates and serve their electorates‟ interests. In this conventional view, much of the activity of elected officials takes place “in the shadow of elections,” with the awareness that potential opponents may publicize their actions, if these seem likely to be unpopular with their electorates.

        On the other hand, some recent work suggests that even in democracies, there is much less retrospective electoral accountability than the conventional view suggests. In a sense, this failure should not be surprising in light of democratic theory. Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill emphasized in the mid-19th century the importance, for effective control of government, of alert and involved citizens. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “the inhabitant of New England is attached to his township not so much because he was born there as because he sees in that township a free and strong corporation that he is a part of and that is worth his trouble to seek to direct.” Democracy, in Tocqueville‟s view, also relies on the existence of multiple voluntary associations, linked to political associations in multiple ways. In the words of John Stuart Mill, “the rights and interests of every or any person are only secure from being disregarded when the person is himself able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them.”

Robert O. Keohane. The Concept of Accountability in World Politics and the Use of Force.

Internet:<Repository.law.umich.edu> (adapted).