The Kingdom of Individuals III: Obligations to the Community and to the Organization
Bailey has a word for putting the organization ahead of the individual: holism (as opposed to individualism). What
complicates this concept in government is that there are two wholes,
the organization itself and the community it works for. One of the
things that most determines a local government's ethical environment is
which of the two wholes an official or employee is most supposed to put
above his or her personal interest.<br>
<br>
According to political theory, officials' power
is derived from the people who elect them. And
yet that power is exercised within the organization. Whenever officials
speak publicly, they talk in terms of the people and the community, but
they act in terms of the organization. To people outside of government,
the people are what appears to be sacralized, that is, what is
effectively
worshipped, spoken about as if it guides everyone's thoughts and
actions. But things are different within the
government, where often the people are seen as an obstacle to action,
more
irritant than deity.<br>
<br>
Bailey wrote, “Those who have power in an organization
have a
clear
interest in sacralizing it, in making its service primarily a matter of
conscience and duty.<span> </span>Holism stabilizes
their command and helps to keep them feeling good about themselves;
when they
punish people, they can claim to be acting for the good of all,
including the
offenders.<span> </span>Holism provides a convenient
rhetoric from behind which to exercise power.”<br>
<br>
So here is yet another basic conflict of interest in local government: between obligations to the community and obligations to the organization (usually including local political parties). What makes this conflict so annoying is that it is a necessarily hypocritical conflict. Officials say publicly that their loyalty is to the people who elected them (or to appointing officials who were elected), but within the organization it is tacitly understood that loyalty to the organization and to its leaders is paramount, and that the internal relationships are what determines the exercise of power, as well as who gets on the ballot or gets support.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---