Nonviolence and Government Ethics V – Modeling Corruption

Anonymous

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 11:16

Book Reviews

In his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Search-Nonviolent-Future-Ourselves-Families/dp/19…; target="”_blank”">The
Search
for
a
Nonviolent
Future</a>, Michael N. Nagler talks about two models for looking at
violence that are also relevant to government ethics, the medical model and the educational model. 
 
The Medical Model 
The first is the medical model, which sees violence as disease, and
peace
as health. Corruption can be usefully seen as a
disease of democracy, in two ways. One, in the way it spreads through
government. And two, in the way it spreads in the public's imagination.

If corruption is the virus, loyalty is the thing that allows the virus
to spread through a government organization in much the
same way as a cold or a stomach flu. The difference is that while both
kinds of virus are invisible, we often don't see even the symptoms of
the spread of corruption.
And when we do, most people are afraid to do anything about them. 
 
Another difference is that we don't have a cure for an unhealthy
government. Nor do we even have a name for a
healthy government, at least nothing so simple as "peace." It isn't
enough to say, as we do when we're sick, that we want to "get better."
Dealing responsibly with conflicts may make officials better
people, but
this is far more difficult than taking a pill. In fact, the real cure
isn't to get rid of corruption. It is to prepare people
to
deal with corruption in their midst, and with the feelings in each of
us that we have obligations to our families and others, especially when
those others remind you of your obligations to them. 
 
That's the thing with government ethics. These feelings, these
obligations, are in all of us. Think of them like stress in health.
Stress doesn't cause a disease, but it helps to undermine our immune
system. If we had no obligations to anyone, there would still be
selfishness and greed. But these become far stronger when we can
justify our selfishness and greed by telling ourselves that we are
helping our family, friends, and
business associates live a better life. And these are in addition to
the obligations we feel to party and government colleagues. Just
as stress increases our susceptibility to disease, obligations increase
our susceptibility to acting unethically, to putting our obligations to
others ahead of our obligations to the public. 
 
To counter stress, we exercise, take vacations, meditate, and talk out
our problems with spouse, friends, clergy, or psychotherapist
[Disclosure: my wife is a psychotherapist.] What do we do to counter
obligations? Exercising can be a good time to stop and think through
what we're doing at work, but exercise itself won't help, nor will
taking a vacation. Meditation is good for whatever ails you. In fact,
Nagler sees it as an essential daily activity for the practice of
nonviolence, to discipline yourself to handle anger and fear when you
need to. He feels that it is "the very root of judgment, character and
will," the way to win the war within us all. 
 
But for those who choose not to practice meditation or self-hynosis,
discussion is the best way to counter obligations.
Discussion with ourselves, with those to whom we have obligations, and
with our colleagues at work. If many officials in each government
organization were to openly discuss their obligations and how to deal
with them responsibly, there would be no corruption. Not because
everyone would nod their heads and say how wonderful it is to be
honest,
open, and responsible (although many more would do this). But because
even the hopeless officials would know they couldn't get away with
anything, and that their colleagues would simply laugh at their excuses. 
 
The other way that corruption spreads is in the public's imagination. A
local, state, or federal ethics scandal often multiplies in citizens'
minds and undermines their trust of officials at all levels. With the
internet, we are increasingly aware of what is going on elsewhere, so
that we are constantly bombarded by ethical viruses and bacteria that formerly
we would not have encountered. But the cures have not advanced along
with the disease's ability to spread. 
 
That is why it is so important now that government ethics practitioners
join together to start establishing best practices that can be embraced
nationally, at all levels. Responding to local instances of corruption
is no longer enough. Officials in every jurisdiction need to recognize
the advantages of an ethics program. Which brings us to the second
model, the educational model. 
 
The Educational Model 
In the educational model, violence is seen as a kind of ignorance.
Violence is "a failure of imagination," an inability to imagine another
way to a peaceful resolution. This is true on the personal and on the
institutional and national levels. When someone strikes out violently,
he has lost sight of alternatives. When a nation moves toward war,
its people lose sight of the alternatives, and those who support
peaceful resolutions are silenced or silence themselves. 
 
An ignorance of history and a failure of imagination also lie behind
the
principal criticism of nonviolence: it doesn't work. The fact is
that it has worked, as Nagler showed, and as others have shown in their
histories of the use of nonviolence (e.g., the histories of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-History-Dangerous-Library-Chronicles/…; target="”_blank”">Mark
Kurlansky</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Force-More-Powerful-Non-Violent-Conflict/dp/03122…; target="”_blank”">Peter
Ackerman
&
Jack DuVall</a>), and its results are usually not only
more peaceful, but also more democratic than the use of violence. Even when it fails, nonviolence works, because it sets a good example for others. Violence teaches only horrible habits. Even when it works, it is still a failure. 
 
Teaching Moral Imagination 
Both unethical conduct and opposition to strong government ethics
programs are also kinds of ignorance and failures of the imagination. A
couple of years ago, I wrote a post called <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/822" target="”_blank”">Ethical Decision-Making</a>,
in which I quoted from Jonah Lehrer's book on how the brain works (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620117/" target="”_blank”" target="”_blank”">How
We Decide</a>). In his chapter "The Moral Mind," he shows that
ethical decision-making
requires
"taking other people into account. ... Doing the right thing means
thinking
about everybody else, using the emotional brain to mirror the emotions
of strangers. ... At
its core, moral decision-making is about sympathy. We abhor
violence because we know violence
hurts. We treat others fairly because we
know what it feels like to be treated unfairly." 
 
Government officials who participate in unethical conduct and who do
nothing when they see others acting unethically have poorly developed
moral imaginations. They cannot imagine how what they or others are
doing could be hurting others. They can see themselves being treated
unfairly, they can see themselves not trusting others, but they cannot
see how others feel they are being treated unfairly or how others feel
a lack of trust in them. 
 
Looking more deeply at this sort of ignorance leads us back to the
medical model. In a recent post called <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/lack-empathy" target="”_blank”">A Lack of Empathy</a>,
I
looked
at this inability to imagine how others are thinking and
quoted Lehrer saying recently that "the absence of empathy ... is
psychopathy." The principal characteristics of psychopathy are a lack
of
empathy and of guilt, the manipulation of others, pathological lying,
and a failure to take responsibility for one's actions. 
 
This is not to say that officials who participate in unethical conduct
are murderous psychopaths. Murderous psychopaths are at the far end of
the
continuum. But there is a need not just to educate officials about
ethics rules, but also about moral imagination and its role in ethical
decision-making. 
 
Teaching Government Ethics 
People are always saying that you cannot teach people to act ethically.
This is only true if you don't understand what government ethics is,
that is, if you don't understand that government ethics is limited to
conflicts of interest, and that dealing responsibly with conflicts is
more about analyzing situations, seeing them from the outside, and
acting professionally than about being good. The process of
learning how to use your moral imagination is one area that does help
an individual act ethically, but it is unfortunately a process
generally lacking from government ethics training. 
 
There is also a great deal of ignorance about government ethics and how
it works. For example, people are generally not willing to spend much
money on government ethics, because they see it as not very productive.
They don't understand that getting officials to follow government
ethics rules will save a local government millions of dollars a year both in money and in
productivity, because contracts and jobs will not be given on the basis
of relationships, but rather on the basis of what is best for the
community. Nepotism destroys morale, scandals undermine a community's
ability to attract businesses, and competent people do not want to work
for corrupt governments. 
 
Of course, the benefits of government ethics are not limited to
monetary benefits. The participation of citizens in a government they
trust is invaluable. Equally, on the individual level, thinking of
others actually feels good. This is how our brains are designed. 
 
Nagler says that "violence is a mechanical 'solution' that cheats us of
an
opportunity to grow." This is equally true of the use of intimidation
in a government organization. It is the easy, unimaginative way to push
one's weight around (or, actually, the weight of one's office). And
it cheats not only those who are put in fear of their jobs and
reputations, but also those who do the intimidating. 
 
I think there is also a failure of the imagination in the government
ethics community. Practitioners do not seem to believe that they can
band together and make an important difference in how government ethics
is understood and treated in local governments across the country.
Local government officials of all kinds, lawyers, lobbyists, employees
all band together to seek (or prevent) valuable changes. Only local
government ethics practitioners do not believe they can make a
difference. They of all people should have the imagination and the
courage to try to make a difference, not only in their local
government, but in the great majority of local governments that lack
any government ethics practitioners. 
 
How Unethical Conduct Educates 
Violence has its own educational process. "Every time we use violence
to solve a problem we send the signal that
violence is the way to solve problems." The more violence they
experience, the more people are desensitized to it. This is equally
true of unethical conduct. Government officials and employees come to
accept it as part of the environment, and they come to accept
increasingly harmful conduct. 
 
According to Nagler, it is a task of
nonviolence "to awaken sleeping consciences by making
people aware of the pain they're causing — making them feel it
empathetically." This should also be a task of government ethics. 
 
The Timeline of Education 
Like education, government ethics doesn't work overnight. Acts of
courage in government ethics can have an enormous
effect on the immediate situation, an enormous effect on the local
government ethics
environment and, if it becomes a news story, it can even have an
effect outside of the community. But short of Watergate, no single
scandal has led to huge changes outside of the particular locality or
state. And most of the time, any changes are minor and sometimes
short-lived. But that doesn't mean government ethics is not working. It
means that its timeline is long, like education. Patience is a major
virtue in both pursuits. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Nonviolence and Government Ethics V – Modeling Corruption

Tags

Share This Page