There is a clear distinction between accountability and blame. Blaming has to do with finding fault in others. Accountability has to do with self and the willingness to explain actions in a clear and meaningful way. Blame has to do with accusations. Accountability has to do with the ability and willingness to withstand scrutiny.

Accountability is forward looking. It demands that individuals or organizations examine past performance in order to learn and grow.

Blaming looks to assign responsibility. Accountability accepts responsibility.

If accountability is so benign why does it seem so many people are trying to avoid the process? The answer lies in the addendum. Accountability requires that someone be willing to explain their actions and accept the consequences. Since hindsight is not always kind people fear reprisals. Still, society does not function well without accountability. Forgiveness may be divine but carte blanche absolution for good intentions may be the surer way to hell.

It is right to acknowledge an individual’s good intentions and forgive their human weaknesses. It is right and fair to consider the things that thwarted their best efforts. But at the same time it also right to expect justice – for there to be punishments as sure as rewards. This is a true ethical dilemma. Justice demands consequences – mercy begs forgiveness. Where we too often fail is in not allowing the examination that would lead to the point of deciding between justice and mercy. This is where accountability comes in.

Accountability is the bright light that allows us to examine the situation. Accountability does not seek excuses but presents facts. For there to be accountability someone must be willing to say – I was responsible (which is not to say “to blame”) and someone else must be willing to ask the questions that will bring all of the relevant facts to the table. Others must allow this to unfold – even though it may be difficult or uncomfortable. Others must not shy away. If the process is done well there will be a point at which those involved can decide whether punishment or sanctions are in order or whether society would be better served by compassion. But without the scrutiny there can be no resolution.

If we agree that finger pointing and blaming are wrong surely so too is forgiveness without examination. Both are done in the dark, without evidence, without merit.

We are all aware that good governance requires transparency and accountability. Transparency has to do with the process itself. The rules must be clear. Interested parties should be aware of what is occurring as the process progresses. When there is true transparency accountability is assured. That is not to say it is not necessary, only that it is easily obtained.

There are times, however, when the process must be shielded; a certain level of secrecy must be maintained in the interest of strategy or public protection. When this is true then accountability becomes even more important.

We have a tendency to heap laurel wreaths on the victors, to praise and reward when things go well. When outcomes are not as expected or when things go very wrong we call for accountability. This tendency adds to the fear of being held accountable. In truth, where the process has not been transparent – and even when it has – we should always call for a reckoning of the accounts before the rewards, punishments or forgiveness are conferred.