Political accountability is constraint placed on the behavior of public officials by organizations and constituencies with the power to apply sanctions on them.  As political accountability increases, the costs to public officials of taking decisions that benefit their private interests at the expense of the broader public interest also increase, thus working as a deterrent to corrupt practices.

Accountability rests largely on the effectiveness of the sanctions and the capacity of accountability institutions to monitor the actions, decisions, and private interests of public officials. 

Political accountability limits the use and sanctions the abuse of political power. Public exposure is necessary but not sufficient to limit or sanction the abuse of power. Actors and institutions that promote accountability attempt to bind the exercise of power to specific benchmark standards. Political accountability can be promoted through both state and non-state institutions, and pro-accountability outcomes often depend on mutually reinforcing interactions between the two.

It is the liability assumed by all those who exercise authority to account for the manner in which they have fulfilled responsibilities entrusted to them, a liability ultimately to the Afghan people owed by parliament, by the government and thus, every governmental department and agency. Without it, power in the hands of the wrong individual or group could be abused to the extent where laws and policies could be formulated which would undermine the integrity of the Afghan population.

Legitimate political power must be properly controlled and regulated through accountable measures otherwise social, political, and economic chaos could ensue. Unfortunately, Afghanistan does not possess such legal measures to limit the power of those who have it, at least on the surface.

Transparency via public scrutiny has proven to be one of the most powerful forms of monitoring public officials.  Such transparency can be fostered by a number of measures, including: opening sessions of the parliament, government, and the courts to the public; registering lobbying activities; and publishing the voting records of parliamentarians, annual reports of government bodies, trial records, and the decisions of judges.

There is a range of legal instruments as well as agency-specific rules which can be effective in deterring corrupt behavior.  Ethical codes, regulations on lobbying, disciplinary committees, prohibitions on and disclosure of conflict of interest, including the receipt of gifts and other benefits received from private resources, asset declaration laws, procurement laws and party financing laws are amongst the most prominent ones.

Freedom of information laws, whereby citizens can demand the disclosure of information regarding government activities and a whistle-blower protection law in order to encourage the reporting of corruption cases can further reinforce the impact of increased transparency on accountability. To be fully effective, however, such laws need oversight and implementation bodies. Afghanistan rudimentarily needs these law formulated and enacted with soul and spirit.