Daring to be a Daniel: The Pathology of Politicized Accountability in a Monitory Democracy.

This article attempts to make a bold and provocative argument not just about the state of accountability research as a field of inquiry but also about the gap that has apparently emerged between the governors and the governed (and the professional responsibilities of scholars beyond academe in terms of public engagement). It emphasizes that “too much accountability can be as problematic as too little” and asks whether it is possible that the transition from “representative” to “monitory” democracy, which is reflected in an increasingly dense and aggressive “accountability industry” (constitutional watchdogs, audit processes, ethical guardians, investigatory agencies, regulatory boards, freedom of information legislation, quasi-judicial commissions, etc.), has actually contributed to the erosion of public support for politicians, political processes, and political institutions? It therefore seeks to challenge a number of “self-evident truths” and dares to be a little brave, to fly some kites, and risk the inevitable misunderstanding and deliberate criticism that attempting to say something different entails. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]