Nonviolence and Government Ethics II – Teamwork and Leading By Example

Nonviolence, as Michael N. Nagler presents it in his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, is not just a way of standing up to dictators, as in Egypt, or trying to change discriminatory laws, as in the civil rights movement. Nonviolence also includes what Gandhi referred to a Constructive Program, positive acts that can be done every day.

Gandhi's goal was to establish an inclusive community with shared values. Armies also know how to create inclusive communities with shared values. But those values are often based on dehumanizing the enemy. It is very hard to kill human beings, especially people you respect. It is much easier to kill evil krauts, gooks, and imperialist pigs, than it is to kill an individual with a wife and two young children.

The question I want to deal with in my posts is whether there are techniques similar to those employed by nonviolence that are being used or that can be used in local government ethics.

What Is Nonviolence?
But first I should define "nonviolence," since it is an often misunderstood term. Nonviolence is not the same thing as pacifism, which opposes war. Nonviolence provides alternatives to violence. It is not passive resistance, but an active strategy with clear goals. It is not a weapon of the weak and oppressed, but a show of internal strength and courage. It is an alternative not only to violence but also to the emotions that lead people to act violently. It is based on mutual respect and on the humanization rather than the dehumanization of others, including one's "enemies." Although in defining it, nonviolence seems like a double-negative, it actually is far more positive than it appears.

Gandhi called his overarching approach "Satyagraha" (sat-yah'-grah-hah), which means "clinging to the truth," but is usually translated as "soul force" or "truth force." It is a force in its own right, but neither a force that seeks power nor a force that seeks to harm others. Nonviolent action employs in its means the very values it seeks to establish. In this, it is very different from violence that says it seeks to achieve peace, or a vicious political campaign that says it seeks to achieve justice or other beneficial results.

Nonviolence shows us that there is an alternative other than passivity or violent revolt. Think how many times those who topple a corrupt local government are, despite their calls for good government, really seeking power themselves, and end up being just as corrupt as the last administration. Think how much opposition locally comes from people who just don't want to pay their share of taxes, and whose leaders fume with anger and attack people trying to preserve public services. And recognize that poor ethics environments would not exist except for citizens' indifference and passivity.

Teamwork
I discussed one important nonviolence technique in an earlier blog post:  teamwork. One recent example of nonviolent teamwork is the creation of a Facebook page called "We Are All Khaled Saeed." The page was started by Wael Ghonim in honor of a young man killed by police in Alexandria, Egypt last June. This event helped fuel the nonviolent protests that were going on when Tunisia broke into protest.

Teamwork is important for government ethics, because unethical conduct generally is not the work of one bad apple, but rather of a group of people who participate in the conduct or allow it to occur. Rarely is there teamwork on the other side. Most local ethics commissions don't even meet when there is not a complaint or a request for an advisory opinion. Most local ethics commissions do not communicate with other local ethics commissions. In fact, most ethics proceedings are confidential, so that no one can seek help except the respondent.

And unlike most people who effectively practice nonviolence, most ethics commission members have little or no training. And the training they have is about laws, not about techniques or tactics. And those in the community who support good government also lack sufficient training, although they do often communicate about issues when they arise. But they often have little information to work with, since everything from advisory opinions to investigations to hearings are kept secret, unless someone leaks information to the press.

Ethical teamwork is even more important within a local government, but communication on ethics issues is usually not very common. Again, there is little or no training in how to discuss the ethical aspect of government decision-making. Nor is there usually leadership on the issue, or cooperation with the ethics commission to facilitate such discussions. The result is that ethical decisions are made, for the most, either alone or with colleagues who either have little knowledge about government ethics or do not want to seem judgmental toward their friend. Ethical decisions are also not made on an everyday basis, but only when something serious comes up, often only when someone is under attack, which is the worst time to make such decisions.

One of the best things about open discussion of ethics issues in government is that it empowers subordinates. In a poor ethics environment, subordinates know what is going on, but are afraid to say anything. Open discussion removes the fear and allows subordinates to say what their superiors, who tend to face conflict situations, should hear. Empowered subordinates, in turn, make it much harder for higher-level officials to deal irresponsibly with their conflicts. It's a win-win situation.

This sort of "constructive program" is the most important and effective, as well as the most unheralded, part of nonviolence.

Leading By Example
What can officials themselves do to help create a constructive program? Besides supporting the open discussion of ethics issues, the most important thing they can do is lead by example. People tend to take cues from higher-level officials. If they are secretive, arrogant, or intimidating, mid-level officials will be secretive, arrogant, and intimidating. If they are open, civil, and understanding, mid-level officials are more likely to be open, civil, and understanding.

On a regular basis, rather than just when scandals arise, high-level officials should lead the discussions of ethics issues. And they should practice what Nagler calls "the habit of truth." This goes beyond not lying to include being honest about what goes on in government, talking openly about priorities and the budget process, responding directly to questions from the public, and the like.

Officials can also make decisions that effectively dare others to follow them down an unpopular but ethical path. Here's a concrete example. Former Louisiana governor and congressman Buddy Roemer has announced a campaign for president. Here are the first words you find when you visit the Roemer for President website:

Do you want a President free to lead? Today, real people don't have a voice in Washington, D.C. Special interest money controls the discussion.

He could have stopped there or gone on to say more about the need to have public financing that includes contribution limits and full disclosure of contributions. But instead he continues:

While I look forward to sharing my views on the issues as I explore a candidacy for President of the United States, I will make one commitment to you today. I will take no PAC money. I will take no special interest money. I will accept no contribution greater than $100. And I will report every contribution, however small, regardless of whether federal law requires it.

That last phrase is the most important one:  "regardless of whether federal law requires it." This is recognition that ethics laws, including campaign finance laws, are minimum requirements. Just because it's legal to accept PAC money or contributions over $100, that doesn't mean you have to accept them yourself.

Of course, without a public financing program, anyone who truly believes he is electable will not want to give up any advantage. Elections are all about winning, not leading. What Roemer is saying is that elections are about leading, about setting an example. If he loses, he will still have won, because he will have made a point. And maybe one or more other candidates will follow his lead, wholly or partially. But at least the question will, hopefully, be asked of other candidates:  why are you taking large contributions from special interests and their PACs? Why aren't disclosing all your contributions?

Please don't take this as support for Roemer. I know little else about him. But this is a great example of what anyone running for office or sitting in office can do to move their city, county, state, or the nation toward more ethical behavior in a constructive way. It is also an example of thinking outside the box, which is the topic of my next blog post on nonviolence and government ethics.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---