social movement accountability learning and leadership
In partnership with Humanity United, and led by Yomna Ahmed, Accountable Now conducted independent research around what accountability does and can look like for social movements. This research was born out of a growing recognition that many social movements, while advocating for justice, sometimes replicate harmful power dynamics internally. After an independent Desk Review, we launched a Listening Phase, conducting 30 virtual 1-on-1 interviews and one in-person listening session. In total, we learned from over 50 activists, organizers, and affected community members from 21 countries.
ACTIVISTS
COUNTRIES
INTERVIEWS
Across the conversations, participants strongly affirmed that accountability is urgently needed in social movements. However they resisted understanding it as a donor driven compliance requirement or a formal reporting exercise. Instead, accountability was repeatedly described as a relational, cultural and values-based practice: a way of staying aligned with a movement’s purpose, members, communities and principles. In the words of participants, accountability is “a way of being,” “alignment between actions and principles,” and “a tool for self organizing, not external policing.”
The desk review supports this finding. It frames movement accountability as primarily bottom up: movements are accountable to their members, grassroots base, affected communities, allies, ethical commitments and public trust not only to funders, governments or formal institutions. It also identifies several accountability dimensions: mission and strategy, decision-making and leadership, behaviour and ethics, use of resources and outcomes or impact.
The strongest finding from both research and listening is that movements do not need accountability to become more institutionalized, they need accountability to become more resilient, trustworthy, democratic, safe and internally coherent. The challenge is therefore not whether movements should develop accountability practices but how to do so without losing their agility, autonomy, radical imagination or security.
Definitions and understanding of ‘accountability’ are wide and varied, and the use of the word in English has big limitations in other languages. Participants shared how their languages have different associations with the term. Below we’ve highlighted a few, to demonstrate how sometimes multiple languages have the same connotation, and other times, one language may have many connotations:
Initial research clearly shows the term ‘accountability’ is not just a technical or compliance-based term. The research shows that the term is culturally shaped and often understood through lived practices.
Beginning with the Desk Review, our research demonstrated that accountability in social movements is usually “bottom up.” This means that activists and leaders are viewed and view themselves as answerable to the people and communities they represent or organize with, rather than primarily to external authorities.
The Listening Phase confirmed this framing. Through conversations with participants, four intertwined meanings continue to emerge:
Building an accountability support network on a global level: Social movements across themes, languages, and geographies can – and want to – exchange and grow together. By fostering a global community of movements, a group rooted in solidarity, we can enable a more resilient civil society. Across the board, participants expressed keen interest in further exchanges and learnings.
Documenting and sharing accountability tools and practices specifically for social movements: Many existing resources for civil society don’t capture the nuance of social movements. By capturing and promoting tried and true practices across different themes, non-hierarchical power dynamics, cocreation facilitation techniques, and participatory decision-making practices, to name a few, rather than just theory, we can better support and equip movements to learn from each other. Initial thoughts include making these learnings fully accessible via an Accountable Now Social Movement Library, where we can promote the learnings so not just social movements can learn from each other, but the broader civil society sector can learn and embed the spirit of activism into their work.
Co-developing movement-centered frameworks grounded in lived realities: While civil society as a whole holds common principles, including a strong focus on building trust, this early research clearly shows that CSOs and social movements have different contexts for accountability. Current frameworks for accountability are better suited for CSOs, and participants expressed interest in collaboratively designing a framework for social movements that is rooted in their realities.
Continuing conversations and learning about social movement accountability through more research: The Desk Review and Listening Phase were just the start. Social movements, in addition to being underfunded, are underresearched. By investing in deeper research around accountability in and for social movements, we can build a more resilient ecosystem. To start, Accountable Now is curious how accountability plays out in reality across gender, age, organizational structure, and themes.