You are here
Nonviolence and Government Ethics VII – Seeking Order
Sunday, March 20th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Seeking Order in Government
All government officials seek order, not just in the sense of law and order, but also in the sense of having everyone know their roles, their authority, and their relationships to other individuals and agencies.
Nonviolent actors seek order in societies where some kinds of disorder are taken for granted, for example, in dictatorships that have usurped authority and destroyed relationships.
In this sense, government ethics seeks order in governments where unethical conduct is taken for granted, where personal relationships have moved into government, and where officials have misused authority and undermined relationships, processes, and morale.
Officials often picture government ethics as disruptive, but government ethics is merely trying to preserve the separation between the personal and the public that is necessary to the proper functioning of our democracy. This is one reason why it is so important for government ethics not to get involved in personal matters that do not conflict with the public interest, such as an official's personal conduct outside of the official role. Government ethics too should not confuse the personal and the public.
What government ethics is trying to disrupt is the misuse of government office and the intimidation of government employees as well as of the public. When officials paint a picture of an ethics commission misusing its power to destroy political careers, the larger question of order and disorder should be raised. It should be admitted that an ethics commission too must follow the rules and separate the personal from the public. And it should be pointed out how this is a good argument in favor of making the ethics commission as independent as possible, so that its members do not have any personal or partisan interest in the outcome of its proceedings. Placing politically-involved individuals on an ethics commission is asking for trouble.
Seeking Order in Ourselves
In his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, Michael N. Nagler says that it's important to remember that we too have weaknesses that got us into this situation: "no weakness, no exploitation." Therefore, "correcting our own weaknesses is a powerful way to resist exploitation."
Gandhi felt it was the best way. "Where most movement stays fixed on 'getting them off our back,' he instinctively felt that this was only half the story — and maybe only the shadow half. The really powerful approach was, 'let's get up off our own backs.'"
This is true of the oppression of Indians by the British, and it is also true of the use of intimidation in local governments with poor ethics environments. Intimidation works only because of others' fear. Without fear, there is no intimidation. Therefore, it is at least as important to find a way not to be afraid as it is to change the behavior of those who intimidate.
Is there a role for government ethics practitioners to work with officials and employees with respect to their fear? Of course, good ethical leadership is the best way to put to rest this sort of fear, but this is presumably not available in a poor ethics environment. Is it enough for an ethics commission to be passive and provide a hotline for anonymous reports of unethical behavior? Or can ethics commissions encourage officials and employees to discuss their poor ethics environment and ways to improve it, and to band together to make it impossible for punishment to occur? Is this a legitimate part of an ethics commission's training and advice functions?
I think it is. And without ethical leadership, who better to fill this role? In fact, this is one area where a local ethics commission has an advantage over a state ethics commission, because a local commission is focused on one ethics environment. If an ethics commission is truly independent, it can make officials and employees feel more comfortable discussing the local government's ethics environment and ways to both alleviate fear and act so as to change the environment in a way that does not involve getting even. To accomplish this ethically, it is best to start with self-criticism, that is, with understanding what it is about those not involved in unethical conduct that allows the unethical conduct to occur.
It is also important to think about the negative side of human nature, not just others', but our own. To imagine what we are capable of, what our selfishness leads us to do, so we can understand what leads others to act as they do. Also, we need to consider what in us prevents us from acting this way, whether it is guilt, fear of being caught, respect for others, or respect for our democratic system. And then we can consider the best ways to prevent misconduct.
Creating guilt and fear are part of the threat process. Respect raises us above it. With this understanding, government ethics practitioners can better respond in a thoughtful, responsible way to unethical conduct, and find effective, peaceful resolutions of problems before and when they arise.
Ethics commissions can also "weave back into the community" groups and individuals who have felt ignored or intimidated in a poor ethics environment. Even though government officials and employees are the subjects of an ethics program, it is important to remember that ethics programs exist primarily for citizens. Therefore, in order to deal with the problems created by a poor ethics environment, it is important to reach out to citizens, as well. They may not be within an ethics commission's jurisdiction, but their troubles arising from a poor ethics environment may be addressed by more than changes to the ethics code.
This is the last post in this series.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
All government officials seek order, not just in the sense of law and order, but also in the sense of having everyone know their roles, their authority, and their relationships to other individuals and agencies.
Nonviolent actors seek order in societies where some kinds of disorder are taken for granted, for example, in dictatorships that have usurped authority and destroyed relationships.
In this sense, government ethics seeks order in governments where unethical conduct is taken for granted, where personal relationships have moved into government, and where officials have misused authority and undermined relationships, processes, and morale.
Officials often picture government ethics as disruptive, but government ethics is merely trying to preserve the separation between the personal and the public that is necessary to the proper functioning of our democracy. This is one reason why it is so important for government ethics not to get involved in personal matters that do not conflict with the public interest, such as an official's personal conduct outside of the official role. Government ethics too should not confuse the personal and the public.
What government ethics is trying to disrupt is the misuse of government office and the intimidation of government employees as well as of the public. When officials paint a picture of an ethics commission misusing its power to destroy political careers, the larger question of order and disorder should be raised. It should be admitted that an ethics commission too must follow the rules and separate the personal from the public. And it should be pointed out how this is a good argument in favor of making the ethics commission as independent as possible, so that its members do not have any personal or partisan interest in the outcome of its proceedings. Placing politically-involved individuals on an ethics commission is asking for trouble.
Seeking Order in Ourselves
In his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, Michael N. Nagler says that it's important to remember that we too have weaknesses that got us into this situation: "no weakness, no exploitation." Therefore, "correcting our own weaknesses is a powerful way to resist exploitation."
Gandhi felt it was the best way. "Where most movement stays fixed on 'getting them off our back,' he instinctively felt that this was only half the story — and maybe only the shadow half. The really powerful approach was, 'let's get up off our own backs.'"
This is true of the oppression of Indians by the British, and it is also true of the use of intimidation in local governments with poor ethics environments. Intimidation works only because of others' fear. Without fear, there is no intimidation. Therefore, it is at least as important to find a way not to be afraid as it is to change the behavior of those who intimidate.
Is there a role for government ethics practitioners to work with officials and employees with respect to their fear? Of course, good ethical leadership is the best way to put to rest this sort of fear, but this is presumably not available in a poor ethics environment. Is it enough for an ethics commission to be passive and provide a hotline for anonymous reports of unethical behavior? Or can ethics commissions encourage officials and employees to discuss their poor ethics environment and ways to improve it, and to band together to make it impossible for punishment to occur? Is this a legitimate part of an ethics commission's training and advice functions?
I think it is. And without ethical leadership, who better to fill this role? In fact, this is one area where a local ethics commission has an advantage over a state ethics commission, because a local commission is focused on one ethics environment. If an ethics commission is truly independent, it can make officials and employees feel more comfortable discussing the local government's ethics environment and ways to both alleviate fear and act so as to change the environment in a way that does not involve getting even. To accomplish this ethically, it is best to start with self-criticism, that is, with understanding what it is about those not involved in unethical conduct that allows the unethical conduct to occur.
It is also important to think about the negative side of human nature, not just others', but our own. To imagine what we are capable of, what our selfishness leads us to do, so we can understand what leads others to act as they do. Also, we need to consider what in us prevents us from acting this way, whether it is guilt, fear of being caught, respect for others, or respect for our democratic system. And then we can consider the best ways to prevent misconduct.
Creating guilt and fear are part of the threat process. Respect raises us above it. With this understanding, government ethics practitioners can better respond in a thoughtful, responsible way to unethical conduct, and find effective, peaceful resolutions of problems before and when they arise.
Ethics commissions can also "weave back into the community" groups and individuals who have felt ignored or intimidated in a poor ethics environment. Even though government officials and employees are the subjects of an ethics program, it is important to remember that ethics programs exist primarily for citizens. Therefore, in order to deal with the problems created by a poor ethics environment, it is important to reach out to citizens, as well. They may not be within an ethics commission's jurisdiction, but their troubles arising from a poor ethics environment may be addressed by more than changes to the ethics code.
This is the last post in this series.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments