Nonviolence and Government Ethics I – Disrespect

Faida Hamdy was a municipal inspector in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia. She was not a very respectful municipal official. So when she found that a young fruit vendor did not have a license, she slapped him. She humiliated him in front of others. The fruit vendor set himself on fire, and this set the Arab world on fire, because the same sort of disrespect from government officials was felt throughout the Arab world. Disrespect is a very powerful thing. And so is respect.

Fortunately, the leaders of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt had been studying nonviolent techniques, techniques that demand and earn respect. And they successfully applied these techniques.

I recently read Michael N. Nagler's fascinating book The Search for a Nonviolent Future. Over the next few days, I will be applying some of the concepts and practices of nonviolence to the field of government ethics. This provides me with an opportunity to consider some of the most important philosophical and practical questions in government ethics.

Nonviolence and government ethics have a lot more to do with each other than you think. "Respect is a powerful antidote to violence," Nagler wrote. It is also a powerful antidote to ethical misconduct. Officials who show disrespect for their constituents and subordinates are the people most likely to engage in such misconduct.

Local government ethics does not deal with violence, at least in the literal sense. But it does deal with violence in the metaphorical sense. Violence against the public trust. Violence against our concept of government as of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And violence against the respect and dignity people deserve (this is the essence of Kantian ethics:  respect is treating individuals as ends rather than as means).

This violence takes many forms, including putting one's personal interests ahead of the public interest (conflicts of interest), keeping information secret (dealt with via sunshine, open meetings, and campaign finance laws), misrepresentation, and covering up.

And there is also violence against citizens, subordinates, and those doing business with the government, which includes disrespect, intimidation, and blackmail ("pay to play" and misuse of subordinates).

The disrespect, greed, and power hunger that leads to ethical misconduct is similar to those that lead to tyranny and war. And the result is fear, especially among subordinates, fear that seriously affects people's lives.

One of the most important moments in my journey toward a career in local government ethics was when a high-ranking official told me that my town's administration had to do what they did with the budget because people in the town didn't understand a town government's needs and voted against any increase in taxes. I was struck less by what he said than by the way he said it, with great disdain and disrespect. It was like a slap in the face, only not directed at me.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to him, or to his colleagues, that instead of playing games with the budget, town officials could have made an effort to educate the public about the problems facing the town and the alternative ways of dealing with them. But when you treat people with respect, they might actually involve themselves in government, which many officials dread.

One of the things Nagler emphasizes is that violence does not only harm those it is directed toward. It also harms those causing the violence.

Like power, disrespect and arrogance corrupts people. It's no accident that the very same official refused to allow a discussion of the town's failure to publicly bid out large contracts. This was not a case of an ignorant public. This was a case of hiding from the public what officials were doing in violation of the town charter and against the public interest.

Disrespect also leads to the creation of a circle of people who know what others do not know, and feel obliged to keep it secret either to protect themselves and their colleagues. So that when ethical misconduct turns criminal, the circle of people who know is ready to accept it, justify it, keep it secret, and intimidate anyone who tries to find out what is going on.

Is this really that much different than the circle of people around a dictator, or a tribal army in Afghanistan, or the gangs of thugs that operated in former Yugoslavia? No one dies, of course, but circles of people holding on to power and fighting secretive battles against their "enemies" can do great damage to the public trust and to our form of government.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---