Nonviolence and Government Ethics VII – Seeking Order

<b>Seeking Order in Government</b><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>Seeking Order in Ourselves</b><br>
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 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."<br>
<br>
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.'"<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
This is the last post in this series.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---