# data[].attributes.body
Accountability is a concept that states that a person or organization is accountable for a specific set of responsibilities and may be obliged to provide a report on how those responsibilities were met to a higher authority before receiving rewards or punishment. Despite the apparent accuracy of this statement, disagreement has developed around the precise notion of accountability.
Castiglione, D. 2012. "accountability". Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/accountability [Accessed 05/03/2023].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
accountability, principle according to which a person or institution is responsible for a set of duties and can be required to give an account of their fulfilment to an authority that is in a position to issue rewards or punishment. Despite the apparent precision of this definition, controversy has arisen about the exact meaning of accountability.

Family resemblances: accountability, responsibility, liability

The term accountable originates from the Latin computare, "to count." To be accountable required a person to produce "a count" of either the properties or money that had been left in his care. This meaning has endured in all those forms of accountability that are exercised through financial bookkeeping or budgetary records. But more discursive meanings of being accountable, in the sense of "giving an account," also emerged early in the history of the term. Accountability as an abstract noun therefore refers to both the capacity of and the obligation on someone to produce an account. Yet, it was not in political or legal discussions that accountability first developed as a term of art or as a fully developed and self-standing concept. In politics and administration, responsibility was the technical term that was preferred to indicate the duty that persons in public authority had to "respond" in their conduct and actions as public officials. In law, was (and is) preferred to indicate that by doing a certain action (or entering into a certain contract) a person has put himself under an obligation and is therefore answerable for the consequences following from that action (or from entering into that contract). Thus, for a considerable time, accountability was part of a family of words in English that covered a number of interrelated meanings that had to do with issues of political representation, executive and administrative responsibility, and, more loosely, legal liability. The relationships between and within these semantic fields, however, have lately been transformed, with accountability taking on a life of its own.

Two facts stand to indicate the late emergence of accountability as a specific concept. One is its historical absence from dictionaries and encyclopaedias until fairly recently (the 1980s). The other is the lack of precise equivalents in most other languages. This has been noted in the literature because of the internationalization of academic life and the increasing dominance of English as a lingua franca (particularly in international organizations). As accountability has acquired a more prominent role in discussions conducted in English about governance, public administration reform, and the quality of democracy, it has become evident how the semantic field covered by the various uses of accountability cannot easily be captured in other languages, where it was traditionally translated by a group of words that had a closer affinity to the term responsibility: responsabilité (French), responsabilidad (Spanish), Verantwortlichkeit (German). Interestingly, in the Romance languages there is no specific word for liability either, which is similarly rendered by contextual uses of the equivalents of responsibility.

One interpretation of this peculiarity has been to suggest that English, unlike other languages, has developed the concept of accountability to capture at a semantic level a series of practices and institutional structures typical of democracies of the Anglo-American type. Such an interpretation fails to appreciate how closely interrelated the developments of the meanings of accountability and responsibility are in English. It also shows a lack of appreciation (or indeed basic knowledge) of the constitutional and administrative discourses and practices of other countries, where the conceptual elements conveyed by accountability were rendered by a different constellation of terms. It is, however, true that recent developments in politics and management have contributed to the redefinition of accountability and that, as this term has tended to acquire new connotations and normative force, attempts at a direct translation have become more problematic and, nonetheless, more imperative because of the increasing dominance of English as an international language.

Some rough distinctions

To understand the original applications of accountability, some distinctions may be in order. The first set of distinctions refers to the areas to which the idea of accountability may apply. Normally, accountability is said to apply to positions of public office. These comprise both political positions, where representatives or people covering other institutional roles deal with public affairs in the name and interest of the citizens, and administrative positions, where the link with the citizens is mediated by the government. The chain of accountability is different in the two cases, and so is the form that accountability takes. Political accountability is of a more inscrutable nature. In democracies, it depends, on the one hand, on the form and mechanisms of political representation, linking citizens to their legislators, and, on the other hand, on the formalized relationship between executive and legislative powers. Both types of political accountability rely on a rather weak power of control because the position of the "agents" in those two relationships is comparatively stronger in either their knowledge or their ability to control the agenda. Ultimately, legislators can be voted out of office by their constituencies, although governments can be brought down by parliaments (though this does not apply in presidential systems), but whether this is the result of the process of strict accountability for what legislators or governments do while in office or of a more general political evaluation, subject to opinion's trends, by the electorate remains a moot point. Administrative accountability is apparently more straightforward because it operates within a more definite hierarchical structure where there is a certain division of labour and competencies and where both the content and the process of public decision making and, hence, the role played by individuals can be examined in more detail. There is another area of political and administrative accountability that is concerned less with how well (or badly) public officials operate in the public interest and more with whether they abuse their position of authority. Accountability is here concerned with reducing the opportunities for corruption, maladministration, or legal impropriety that come to people in positions of power. Political and administrative institutions have a series of mechanisms and internal instruments for policing abuses of power, but, ultimately, accountability relies on more traditional legal instruments and the operations of the legal system and the courts at large. Much of the effectiveness of this kind of legal accountability depends on the nature of the legal system itself, as well as on the level of independence of the judiciary from political power.

The second set of distinctions regards the process of accountability. This is concerned with three different questions: who is accountable, to whom, and for what? In the case of political accountability, where this operates as a general mechanism through which citizens hold their legislators accountable through the electoral process, the questions of who and to whom would seem straightforward. Less clear is the answer to the question for what. Indeed, the relationship between the actions and decisions of politicians and their direct consequences is a matter of intense political contention. Besides, no simple mechanism can be devised to hold politicians and governments accountable for the series of often-unrelated decisions that they take during the period they are in office. The issue is somewhat simpler in the case of ministerial and administrative accountability because it may be easier to apportion responsibility and blame when dealing with more specific policy issues or administrative decisions and when the chain of causes and effects can be more easily isolated from the context of other policies and decisions and from the general circumstances of economic and social life. Even so, ministerial and administrative accountability is often easier to deal with (at least conceptually) in cases of maladministration than when trying to establish how well or badly people in public office have operated-an issue that, as can be seen in the following section, has become increasingly central to the definition of public accountability.

When dealing with administrative responsibility, the questions of who is accountable and to whom are rather complex. They suffer, respectively, from the problems that come from "many hands" and "many eyes." It is indeed often difficult to identify with precision where responsibility lies in decisions taken about complex problems in complex organizations. No single person would have been involved, and it is not easy to apportion either praise or blame if not in the most obvious instances. The principle of ministerial responsibility, often invoked in many constitutional systems, would suggest that responsibility moves upward and that some degree of knowledge and intervention by people higher in the decision-making hierarchy would put on them, rather than on their subordinates, the onus of responsibility and accountability. This is, of course, the theory. The practice of modern governments rarely conforms to such a standard, relying on the obvious (and occasionally self-serving) justification that too many hands were involved and that higher officials should not take the blame for operational mishaps. Moreover, it is often difficult to distinguish between political and administrative decisions, so that-as put forth by critics of the justifications adduced by the U.S. and the U.K. governments for the Iraq War -combined failures tend to cover each other up, with no one ultimately being accountable or taking the blame.

A similar problem arises when one considers accountability from the reverse perspective of the identification of the people "to whom" officials (particularly in the public administration) should be accountable. It would seem that, in the most immediate sense, public servants are directly accountable to politicians and the government of the day. Yet, public servants' accountability to their political "masters," or to their superiors in the bureaucratic hierarchy, can only be justified as part of a longer chain, making them ultimately accountable to the citizens and the public at large. This longer chain becomes both evident and problematic when dealing with issues such as whistle-blowing, where the public interest is pitched against the duty of confidentiality in acts of government and where "private" judgment is weighed against the role one has in the public chain of command and responsibility. Furthermore, as the traditional hierarchical structure of government becomes more diffuse, the problem of "many eyes"-who the "principals" in the accountability relationship are-becomes more acute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
accountability, principle according to which a person or institution is responsible for a set of duties and can be required to give an account of their fulfilment to an authority that is in a position to issue rewards or punishment. Despite the apparent precision of this definition, controversy has arisen about the exact meaning of accountability.

# data[].attributes.body
An individual can alter their role and benefit from matching changes in status in an open society. An open society allows different social groups to compete for the same resources, making relations between them competitive, in contrast to a closed society, which emphasizes hierarchical cooperation between social groups. In an open society, an individual's rank is more significant than the rank of his or her social group.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopedia. 2019. "minority". Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/minority. [Accessed 05/03/2023].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinacy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group. As such, minority status does not necessarily correlate to population. In some cases one or more so-called minority groups may have a population many times the size of the dominating group, as was the case in South Africa under apartheid ( c. 1950-91).

The lack of significant distinguishing characteristics keeps certain groups from being classified as minorities. For instance, while Freemasons subscribe to some beliefs that are different from those of other groups, they lack external behaviours or other features that would distinguish them from the general population and thus cannot be considered a minority. Likewise, a group that is assembled for primarily economic reasons, such as a trade union, is seldom considered a minority. However, some minorities have, by custom or force, come to occupy distinctive economic niches in a society.

Because they are socially separated or segregated from the dominant forces of a society, members of a minority group usually are cut off from a full involvement in the workings of the society and from an equal share in the society's rewards. Thus, the role of minority groups varies from society to society depending on the structure of the social system and the relative power of the minority group. For instance, the degree of social mobility of a member of a minority group depends on whether the society in which he lives is closed or open. A closed society is one in which an individual's role and function can theoretically never be changed, as in the traditional Hindu caste system. An open society, on the other hand, allows the individual to change his role and to benefit from corresponding changes in status. Unlike a closed society, which stresses hierarchical cooperation between social groups, an open society permits different social groups to vie for the same resources, so their relations are competitive. In an open society the rank that the individual attains for himself is more important than the ranking of his social group.

Pluralism occurs when one or more minority groups are accepted within the context of a larger society. The dominant forces in such societies typically opt for amity or tolerance for one of two reasons. On the one hand, the dominant majority may see no reason to rid themselves of the minority. On the other hand, there may be political, ideological, or moral impediments to the elimination of a minority, even if it is disliked. For instance, the commercial trade of certain European countries in the 12th and 13th centuries depended on Jewish merchants, a circumstance that (for a time) prevented the anti-Semitic aristocracy and clergy from driving the Jews into exile. Another example of begrudging toleration can be seen in Britain in the 20-year period following 1950, which saw an influx of immigrants from the Caribbean, Pakistan, and India. Many British people did not like these new minority groups, but the nation's prevailing democratic ideology overcame attempts to eject them.

A minority may disappear from a society via assimilation, a process through which a minority group replaces its traditions with those of the dominant culture. However, complete assimilation is very rare. More frequent is the process of acculturation, in which two or more groups exchange culture traits. A society in which internal groups make a practice of acculturation usually evolves through this inherent give and take, causing the minority culture to become more like the dominant group and the dominant culture to become increasingly eclectic and accepting of difference.

Efforts to forcibly eliminate a minority from a society have ranged from expulsion to mob violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. These forms of oppression obviously have immediate and long-term negative effects on those who are victimized. They typically devastate the economic, political, and mental health of the majority population as well. Many examples of minority expulsion exist, as with the British deportation of the French population of Acadia, a group that became known as Cajuns, in 1755. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw widespread mob violence against minorities, including pogroms against Jews (in Russia) and lynchings of blacks, Roman Catholics, immigrants, and others (in the United States; see Ku Klux Klan). The mid-20th-century Holocaust, in which Nazis exterminated more than six million Jews and an equal number of other "undesirables" (notably Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals), is recognized as the most egregious example of genocide in the modern era. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, ethnic cleansing and genocide in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, and elsewhere provided tragic evidence that the forcible elimination of minorities continued to appeal to some sectors of society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinacy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group. As such, minority status does not necessarily correlate to population.

# data[].attributes.body
In the context of South Africa, non-racism recognizes the separation brought about by the social concept of race. The ability of people to succeed in South Africa must be based on their creativity and diligence, not the color of their skin. As we work to create a race-neutral South Africa, we acknowledge that racial disparities in socioeconomic status still exist after 26 years of democracy. We can't act as though race isn't a major factor in many South Africans' aspirations. To remedy this historical inequality, we must work together. In order to end the cycle of racial injustice, we must move to put into place genuine policies that improve equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
ActionSA. 2023. Non-racialism. [Online] Available at: https://www.actionsa.org.za/non-racialism/ [Accessed 04/03/2023].

Non-sexism refers to not being prejudiced or discriminating against individuals based on sex, in particular not making distinctions between males and females.
MeriamWebster. 2023. Nonsexist Definition and Meaning. [Online] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsexist [Accessed 05/03/2023].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The architects of Apartheid reprehensibly constructed the classification of people into race groups, and the legacy of that racial classification remains a significant determinant in an individual's economic and social prospects in South Africa today.

# data[].attributes.body
3.Equality

The significance of Equality in our nation relating to education comprises of fundamental principles that are evident as a basic law. As maintained in the CAPS document (South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011:11) it is stipulated that discrimination is prohibited regarding our relationships as we partake in correspondence with each other and this includes marital status, race, sex, pregnancy, gender, social or ethnic roots, religion, disability, birth, language, culture, conscience and belief. Essentially, we need to be cognoscente of all individuals and respect that. As argued in Growing Human Rights and Values in Education: Understanding educational policy from a values and human rights perspective, “civility in respect to tolerance and diversity is an assumed law”. (Beckmann, Niewenhuis & Prinsloo, 2007:59).

Reference list:

Beckmann, J.L., Niewenhuis, J. & Prinsloo, I.J. 2007. Growing Human Rights and Values in Education. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers [online] Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1242910&site=ehost-live&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_59 [Accessed 4 March 2023].

South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011. Values in Action Manual – Basic Education. [Online] Available at: https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Publications/Values%20In%20Action%20Manual.pdf [Accessed 4 March 2023].

# data[].attributes.body
2. Social Justice and Equity

Equity and Social Justice compliments each other as it involves seeing to the fundamental needs for education. According to Amadeo (2021), equity within education is evaluated by the achievements of students regarding the success in education specifically within society and measured by the end result and it indicates that Equity is being executed when basic resources are obtained by the learners to receive fundamental skills. Then, as educators, we should prioritize the importance of gaining insight into the issues that a school is facing while being mindful of their troubled circumstances. Following Academicpartnerships.uta.edu (2021) Social Justice is “supported by the premise that educators must be aware of the troubles that are imbedded in schools, especially those that are located in underprivileged districts” and get rid of inequalities. It is factual that our system still faces gross inequalities. As far as Equity and Social Justice is concerned, in South Africa, it is a fundamental right for citizens to ascertain basic education, water and food, and social surety (South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011:10).

Reference list:

Academicpartnerships.uta.edu. 2021. Social Justice Education in the Classroom. [Online] Available at: https://academicpartnerships.uta.edu/articles/education/social-justice-education-in-classroom.aspx [Accessed 4 March 2023].

Amadeo, K. 2021. What Is Educational Equity, and Why Does It Matter? [Online] Available at: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/equity-in-education-4164737 [Accessed 4 March 2023].

South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011. Values in Action Manual – Basic Education. [Online] Available at: https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Publications/Values%20In%20Action%20Manual.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2023].

# data[].attributes.body
The constitution marks a new era in our county of South Africa. After the apartheid, there was many issue that was looked upon and discussed what can make the future better. This is an account that the law will be processed and ensure that the right measure will be done. This also will create an connection between what has been done and the changes that can be done in peaceful manner. This law representation that all the unfair actions, the unlawful crime acts and rules that doesn’t comply to free state of developing a brighter future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was approved by the Constitutional Court (CC) on 4 December 1996 and took effect on 4 February 1997.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No other law or government action can supersede the provisions of the Constitution.

South Africa's Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world and enjoys high acclaim internationally.

Related links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was approved by the Constitutional Court (CC) on 4 December 1996 and took effect on 4 February 1997. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No other law or government action can supersede the provisions of the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
In South Africa, we promote that respect that id part of the way of life, this is an important process for all cultures, development and protections that all that can reflection on the human rights’ bill. Everyone needs is a important matter that will be protected in the highest order of care and comply by all. This law will be prescribed and promoted to be kind and not matter the differences that we might share.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 - Chapter 2: Bill of Rights | South African Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2. Everyone has the right to receive education in the of ficial language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable.

# data[].attributes.body
In the constitution of South Africa is the highest law of the country. This is a public power that can be exercised in agreement with the law and that is within the boundaries according to the country. This law was created to stop a conflict or arguments that no person was above. The law has important principle that this law was formed to protect everyone rights as human.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
27 It is recognized, however, that "uncertainty over jurisdictional issues" was a matter that "plagued the Constitutional Court in its early years and helped to undermine its image"; see "Constitutional Court profile: The Constitutional Court of South Africa and jurisdictional questions: In the interest of justice?" (2005) International Journal of Constitutional Law 39 at 74 CrossRef Google Scholar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The South African Constitutional Court: Upholding the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers | Journal of African Law | Cambridge Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
27 It is recognized, however, that "uncertainty over jurisdictional issues" was a matter that "plagued the Constitutional Court in its early years and helped to undermine its image"; see "Constitutional Court profile: The Constitutional Court of South Africa and jurisdictional questions: In the interest of justice?"

# data[].attributes.body
5. UBUNTU

This philosophy encourages empathy and awareness for susceptivity on how all individuals must be handled in the same manner, purely based on the premise that being caring is an obligation. It is no secret that our nation is guilty of gross inequalities. According to Beckmann, Nieuwenhuis and Prinsloo (2007:58) direction of this content considers the past to be reformed. Ubuntu supports a functioning society that is accessible to all with the promotion of cultural awareness. In the educational context, “Ubuntu that is practiced by teachers involves equal treatment towards all learners and empowerment of the learners for their own improvement” (Adebayo & Chinhanu, 2020).

Reference list:

Adebayo, S.B. & Chinhanu, C.A. 2020. Ubuntu in Education: Towards equitable teaching and learning for all in the era of SDG 4. [Online] Available at: https://www.norrag.org/ubuntu-in-education-towards-equitable-teaching-and-learning-for-all-in-the-era-of-sdg-4-by-chiedza-a-chinhanu-and-seun-b-adebayo/ [Accessed 3 March 2023].

Beckmann, J.L., Niewenhuis, J. & Prinsloo, I.J. 2007. Growing Human Rights and Values in Education. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers [online] Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1242910&site=ehost-live&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_58 [Accessed 3 March 2023].

South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011. Values in Action Manual – Basic Education. [Online] Available at: https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Publications/Values%20In%20Action%20Manual.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2023].

# data[].attributes.body
Principles that are embedded in values should be practiced and used as a guide to encourage inclusivity. The DBE elaborates on inspection regarding Fairness, Ubuntu, Reuniting, Social Justice, Accountability, Democracy, Civility, Rule of Law, no racism and no sexism, and Equity as values considered and indicated in the DBE document (South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011:7).

Reference:

South Africa. Department of Basic Education, 2011. Values in Action Manual – Basic Education. [Online] Available at: https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Publications/Values%20In%20Action%20Manual.pdf [Accessed 3 March 2023].