Institutional Corruption Conference I: Duplicitous Exclusion

Anonymous

Mon, 02/06/2012 - 11:25

Advisory Opinions

On Saturday, I attended a one-day conference on Institutional
Corruption sponsored by the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard
University (<a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid59085832001" target="”_blank”">videos
of it will eventually appear here</a>). Although local government
was scarcely mentioned (there was one image of a painting that
portrayed the 1930s machine in Kansas City, MO), many ideas that
were discussed are applicable to local government ethics. 
 
I will start with the ideas of Mark Warren, a professor at the
University of British Columbia, not because he was the first or best
speaker, but because, on the train to Boston, I read the online
draft of his 2005 paper "<a href="http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fileadmin/template/main/images/departments/p…; target="”_blank”">Democracy

Against Corruption</a>" and found it fascinating. His talk at the
conference presented some of the same ideas.

Vertical and Horizontal Accountability 
The key term of the paper and talk was "duplicitous exclusion,"
which Warren equates with corruption. Warren starts from the
premise, from democratic theory, that "the central forces in
political decision-making should be accountable representation and
public justification." In other words, our government
representatives should be accountable to us, and a principal way for
this to occur is for them to publicly justify their decisions and
their actions. 
 
The problem is that "vertical accountability," which is done
primarily by citizens voting, does not do a good job of controlling
corruption. A principal reason for this is that corruption is done
secretly. If you don't know about something, you can't do anything
about it. 
 
In addition, "no citizen has sufficient interest in combating
corruption to make the investment in doing so." And when the
institution is corrupt (that is, when there is a poor ethics
environment) and all candidates go along with it, the electorate is
not given sufficient choice to make their representatives
accountable. 
 
This is why citizens must depend on other institutions to signal to
them the reliability of governing institutions. This places the
principal burden on "horizontal accountability," including
government ethics programs. 
 
The Limitations of the Office-Based Conception of Corruption 
The problem Warren points out that is the most serious obstacle to recognizing
the importance of institutional corruption is the limitations of our
"office-based conception" of corruption, that is, our view that
corruption consists primarily of the abuse of public office for
private gain. This view is at the heart of government ethics. Warren
notes that, although this view tends to be effective in an
administrative context, where offices have well-defined purposes and
norms of conduct, it is not so effective in a political context,
where the most important ethical question is the distribution of
influences and the norms relating to how this is done. 
 
What is the alternative to the office-based conception of
corruption? A conception based on "the integrity of democratic
processes," including the process of creating rules and norms
(the unwritten rules of a poor ethics environment undermine this process). According to Warren, it is
these processes that are being protected by an ethics program, not
the integrity of offices or individuals. 
 
What does it mean to protect the integrity of democratic processes?
To answer this, we should recognize that democratic processes are
based on the belief that every individual has an equal moral value
and is, therefore, entitled to participate in governmental matters
on an equal basis, to (at least potentially) equally affect
collective decisions. Warren calls this the "empowered inclusion of
those affected in collective decisions and actions." 
 
Duplicitous Exclusion 
So, with respect to democratic processes, political corruption is
not just individual officials putting their personal interest ahead
of the public interest. Corruption is "unjustifiable exclusion ...
marked by normative duplicity," the long way of saying "duplicitous
exclusion." The corrupt act, according to this approach, is
excluding people from the democratic process in a way that cannot be
justified, doing it in secrecy, and then saying that you favor
inclusion, that is, the various forms of citizen participation in
government. 
 
Although I don't think this description of corruption covers all
sorts of ethical misconduct in local government, it is the best
description I have ever seen of what went on in my own town several
years ago, during the events that pulled me into the world of local
government ethics. The ethical misconduct that occurred was
accompanied, and protected, by a deft combination of duplicity
and exclusion. 
 
One thing nice about Warren's formulation is that it shows how
important transparency is to government ethics, even though the two
are usually handled by separate agencies, according to separate laws
and at separate levels of government. It is rare that a poor ethics
environment does not feature the kinds of secrecy that transparency
laws are intended to prevent. Secrecy is the easy way to prevent the
discovery of ethical misconduct as it occurs. And secrecy continues to be
effective after the fact, as well, popularly known as a cover-up. 
 
Corrupting the Value of Inclusion 
According to Warren, the value of inclusion,
so important to democracy, is not openly denied by officials — no
one argues against inclusion, at least not publicly. Rather, the
value of inclusion, of participation by all citizens affected by
government decisions, itself is corrupted. This corruption lies in
the fact that citizens cannot participate effectively when they lack
the necessary information, and especially when the information that
is given to the public, especially the arguments made in
justification of decisions, is false. This means that the entire
discussion is false, and that citizens' views are not being taken
into account. Citizens are instead seen by officials only as an
obstacle to their self-interest, not as the people the official is
supposed to represent. 
 
We tend to talk about how our representatives are entrusted with
making decisions for our community. But what we too rarely add is
that they "are also entrusted with the integrity of the processes
through which they make their decisions." 
 
Exclusion is not something that occurs only through corruption.
Those who lose an election are relatively excluded from
representation. But that is part of the political process, not the
result of any corruption of the political process. Corruption of
representation occurs (1) when voters effectively sell their votes
in return for patronage, so that patronage replaces representation;
(2) when the public rationales for decisions are not the real
reasons, especially when those reasons involve money and personal
benefit (people can only know about money and personal benefit if
there is an effective ethics program); and (3) when, because there
is systemic corruption, there is no way to punish the corrupt by
voting, even if the information is available (this can only be done
by ethics enforcement). 
 
Warren adds a fourth kind of loss of representation, which can exist
even where there is both sufficient information and ethics
enforcement: the use of votes to further group interests. That
is, individuals vote for one of their own, even if he is not very
trustworthy and even when there are more trustworthy candidates
running. This is not only about ethnic and racial groups. It also
includes the situation where a corrupt representative brings home
the bacon, that is, pulls federal, state, and city money into the
district. Voting becomes an act of self-interest in what is seen as
a zero-sum game involving government resources. The poster boy for this is John Murtha, former Pennsylvania congressional representative. 
 
What differentiates the exclusion caused by corruption, Warren
argues, is the deceit: "corruption is the form of exclusion
enabled by deceit." Ann Tenbrunsel, co-author of Blind Spots (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/search/node/blind%20spots" target="”_blank”">my blog
posts on this book</a>) and a member of the second panel of the
conference, would likely argue that it isn't just deceit that leads
to corruption, but also self-deceit or, at least, our inability to
recognize or acknowledge our ethical misconduct. 
 
That is why, although I like the term "duplicitous exclusion," it is
important to recognize that sometimes the duplicity is not between
an official's "true" reasons and the reasons that she gives, but
rather lies within the official and yet outside the official's
awareness. And most of the time, the public cannot know which sort
of duplicity it is. 
 
Intent and Ethics Advice in Government Ethics 
This is why intent and motive matter little in government ethics.
What matters is relationships and obligations. If an official has a
special relationship with someone involved in a matter before her,
it must be dealt with responsibly. Since the official is either (1)
in denial about the relationship's effect both on her and on the
public's view of her conduct, or (2) consciously wants to benefit
the individual or entity with which she has a special relationship,
the official is usually unwilling to withdraw from the matter and,
in any event, is not the best person to make the decision how to
deal with the relationship. 
 
This is why independent, professional ethics advice is the most
important element of government ethics. An official may not be
willing or able to handle a conflict situation responsibly, or even
recognize that there is a conflict. But an official can identify a
special relationship, whether it be with a relative, a business
associate, or a substantial contributor. If the official were to be
required to seek ethics advice regarding a special relationship when
a matter arose, and the official failed to do so, then the conduct
would clearly be unethical, because the deceit
(hiding the relationship) would clearly be conscious. In government
ethics, the combination of (1) language such as "would reasonably
influence" or "affects the impartial judgment" and (2) placing all
the responsibility on the official, actually enables both kinds of
duplicity. Requiring officials to seek ethics advice is a way to
prevent duplicity by making the responsible handling of a conflict
situation so simple, no excuse, whether believed or not, can be
made. 
 
Warren provides a fresh perspective on the role of government ethics
programs. An ethics program is not just a way to ensure public
trust, but also a way to create inclusion by requiring the
disclosure and responsible handling of conflicts. If a conflict is handled
correctly, this could lead to the visibility and debate of conflicting
relationships, making them "a legitimate part of democratic
discourse." This can be done in public council and board
meetings, as well as at ethics commission meetings. And the
provision of independent, professional ethics advice gives this
debate a solid, trustworthy foundation, which cannot be provided by
a city or county attorney's advice or by the apparently duplicitous
protestations of officials and their colleagues. 
 
Making Integrity a Valuable Resource 
Warren points out that an important goal of government ethics
programs is making integrity (including playing within the rules) a
valuable resource. This gives officials an incentive to develop
their reputation for integrity within the requirements of a good
ethics program. Without a good ethics program, a reputation can be developed as a
deceptive ploy. An official with a well-deserved reputation for
integrity will be seen as trustworthy in the sense that she is open
to influence from any citizen or citizen
group. 
 
Warren's Other Discussion Topics 
Warren's article also contains two other fascinating discussions,
which are worth reading. The first involves how to distinguish
citizen groups that facilitate corruption from those that expose and
fight corruption, not only as a principal goal (such as Common
Cause), but also to promote inclusion, that is, to get their own
views heard (such as an anti-development group). 
 
The second discussion involves decentralization. Warren notes that,
contrary to the argument that government closest to the public is
best, corruption in the U.S. as well as in Europe is greater at the
local level. He gives four reasons for why this is so. 
 
Finally, Warren finds the origin of corruption in the driving
underground of the more overt political violence and coercion of
pre-democratic governments. This is why corruption is such a problem
in transitional democracies. In fact, corruption can be found
anywhere that democratization is incomplete, which is pretty much
everywhere. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Institutional Corruption Conference I: Duplicitous Exclusion

Tags

Share This Page