Nonviolence and Government Ethics VI – Integrative Power

Violence happens. The world is violent. People are naturally violent.
This is what people say.<br>
<br>
Politicians are all crooks. Government ethics is an oxymoron. Don't be
so naïve. This is what people say.<br>
<br>
As Michael N. Nagler says 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>, "when we have negative expectations,
life obligingly fulfills them." We have a choice. We can speak in
double negatives, like "Stop violence" (or "Stop corruption"). Or we
can speak in positives, like "Let's cooperate, mediate, work things
out" (or "Let's discuss what's in the public interest").<br>
<br>
We also have a negative view of power. Power, we think, is used to
oppress, to
harm, to control. But as Nagler points out, there is more than one kind
of power.<br>
<br>

One is negative, "threat power," which says to others, "do
something I want to or
I'll do something you don't want." Threat power works less via
punishment than via fear of punishment.<br>
<br>
One kind of power is more neutral, "exchange
power," which says to others, "give me something I
want and I'll give you something you want." The reason this power
isn't neutral is that there is such a difference in the valuation of
what people have to give.<br>
<br>
And one kind of power is positive, "integrative power," which says to
others, "I'm
going to do what I believe is right, and it will bring us closer." (For
an extended look at these three kinds of power, see Kenneth E.
Boulding's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Three-Faces-Power-Kenneth-Boulding/dp/0803938624&…; target="”_blank”">Three
Faces
of Power</a> (1989).)<br>
<br>
This description of integrative power sounds pretty naïve.
Here's how Gandhi put it: "Power is
of two kinds. One is obtained by fear of punishment,
and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times
more
effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment."<br>
<br>
In a government context, what does it mean to become closer, or to
love? It has a lot to do with community, with bringing people together to solve the community's problems. Nagler refers to this sort of love as "self-sacrificing
devotion." Isn't that what public servants are supposed to be doing?
Isn't that why so many people in our country volunteer for the myriad
of government boards and commissions? Are they seeking only threat and
exchange power, not integrative power? Nearly all of them at least pay
lip service to public service, to self-sacrificing devotion, to
integrative power.<br>
<br>
It could be said that conflict situations arise when people who accept
a position intended to employ integrative power are actually seeking exchange or
threat power. Unethical conduct occurs when officials want something
for their devotion, and use their positions to do this. Unethical
conduct occurs when officials try to rule
rather than serve.<br>
<br>
<b>The Integrative Power of Government Ethics Practitioners</b><br>
Ethics commission members are generally seen as people required to
wield threat power against officials who violate the ethics code. This is why local government officials do not want to give ethics commissions more than minimal power. In this view, there is no question of an EC employing exchange power, and no way for it to bring a community together.<br>
<br>
But as I keep emphasizing, enforcement is not an EC's
principal role. Its principal role is to educate and advise, to do
what it can to get officials to responsibly handle their conflicts
and preserve the public trust. Even the use of enforcement is meant to
prevent further unethical conduct through education rather than through
fear, although in poor ethics environments, where there is no ethical
leadership and the use of threat power prevails, fear may be the only
thing that will work in the short run.<br>
<br>
Enforcement is also intended to gain the public's trust by having the
government show responsibility for at least somewhat righting the
wrongs done by its officials, showing that the government cares and
will not simply allow its officials and employees to use their
positions for personal purposes.<br>
<br>
At the beginning of an earlier blog
post in this series I quoted Nagler as saying, "Anyone who plucks up the courage to offer an
opponent a way out of their conflict can find herself or himself
wielding an unexpected power." Not only is this a use of integrative power, but it also suggests an important way to sell
government ethics, as a professional means of offering officials a way
out of their conflict. This can be done by training, by advice, and by
quickly reaching a settlement rather than allowing the official to dig
himself deeper and deeper into defenses, denials, and cover-ups. It is
rarely argued, but it is very true, that a good government ethics
program is more helpful to officials than to anyone else, but not at
the expense of public trust.<br>
<br>
An EC uses integrative power especially with respect to the government organization, and those who do business with it. IN order to use this power, it is important for ECs to also gain government employees' trust and
the trust of those doing business with government, because they are the
ones who feel the full brunt of officials who use threat power, who
lead through intimidation and employ pay-to-play (which is effectively
blackmail) to get what they want. One way to do this is through strong
whistleblower protection (although none is fullproof) and by
encouraging anonymous tips and allowing the EC to draft its own
complaint when it feels there is a likely violation that cannot
otherwise be resolved.<br>
<br>
But an EC can also reach out to the general community through talks to civic organizations, good relations with the press (teaching reporters about government ethics is important, because they can then educate the public), appearances on local TV and radio shows, and a website that not only provides optimum transparency, but goes out of its way to provide information that can be used by the public, including in schools and universities. ECs need to take an assertive and positive role, and change not only the tone of government ethics, but how and when it becomes a public issue.<br>
<br>
In order for an EC or ethics officer to use integrative power, they
need to be and to appear as
independent as possible. Life in government can be so politicized, both
in the personal and partisan senses, that any perception that ethics
professionals are not neutral will make it difficult for many officials
and employees to turn to them for help or trust what they say and do. Nor will the public trust them.
Having ethics professionals who appear to be biased toward individuals
or parties is probably the single most damaging thing an ethics program
can do. It undermines even an EC's integrative power.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---