Nonviolence and Government Ethics II – Teamwork and Leading By Example

Anonymous

Tue, 03/15/2011 - 04:03

Nonviolence, as Michael N. Nagler presents it 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>, is not just a way of standing up to
dictators, as in Egypt, or trying to change discriminatory laws, as in
the civil rights movement. Nonviolence also includes what Gandhi
referred to a Constructive Program, positive acts that can be done
every day.

Gandhi's goal was to establish an inclusive community with shared
values. Armies also know how to create inclusive communities with shared
values.
But those values are often based on dehumanizing the enemy. It is very
hard to kill human beings, especially people you respect. It is much
easier to kill evil krauts, gooks, and imperialist pigs, than
it is to kill an individual with a wife and two young children. 
 
The question I want to deal with in my posts is whether there are
techniques similar
to those employed by nonviolence that are being used or that can be
used in local
government ethics. 
 
What Is Nonviolence? 
But first I should define "nonviolence," since it is an often
misunderstood term. Nonviolence is not the same thing as pacifism,
which opposes war. Nonviolence provides
alternatives to violence. It is not passive resistance, but an active
strategy with clear goals.
It is not a weapon of the weak and
oppressed, but a show of internal
strength and courage. It is an alternative not only to violence but
also to the emotions that
lead people to act violently. It is based on mutual respect and on the
humanization rather than the dehumanization of others, including one's
"enemies." Although in defining it, nonviolence seems like a
double-negative, it actually is far more positive than it appears. 
 
Gandhi called his overarching approach "Satyagraha"
(sat-yah'-grah-hah), which means "clinging to the
truth," but is usually translated as "soul force" or "truth force." It
is a force in its own right, but
neither a force that seeks power nor a force that seeks to harm others.
Nonviolent action employs in its means
the very values it seeks to establish. In this, it is very different
from violence that says it seeks to achieve peace, or a vicious
political campaign that says it seeks to achieve justice or other
beneficial results. 
 
Nonviolence shows us that there is an alternative other than passivity
or violent revolt. Think how many times those who topple a corrupt
local government are, despite their calls for good government, really
seeking power themselves, and end up being just as corrupt as the last
administration. Think how much opposition locally comes from people who
just don't want to pay their share of taxes, and whose leaders fume
with anger and attack people trying to preserve public services. And
recognize that poor ethics environments would not exist except for citizens' indifference and passivity. 
 
Teamwork 
I discussed one important nonviolence technique in <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/ethical-behavior-team-endeavor" target="”_blank”">an
earlier
blog
post</a>: teamwork. One recent example of nonviolent
teamwork is the creation of a Facebook page called "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/elshaheeed.co.uk" target="”_blank”">We Are All Khaled Saeed</a>."
The
page
was
started
by
Wael
Ghonim
in
honor
of
a young man killed by police in Alexandria, Egypt last June. This
event helped fuel the nonviolent protests that were going on when
Tunisia broke into
protest. 
 
Teamwork is important for government ethics, because unethical conduct
generally is not the work of one bad apple, but rather of a group of
people
who participate in the conduct or allow it to occur. Rarely is
there teamwork on the other side. Most local ethics commissions don't
even meet when there is not a complaint or a request for an advisory
opinion. Most local ethics commissions do not communicate with other
local ethics commissions. In fact, most ethics proceedings are
confidential, so that no one can seek help except the respondent. 
 
And unlike most people who effectively practice nonviolence, most
ethics commission members
have little or no training. And the training they have is about laws,
not about techniques or tactics. And those in the community who support
good government also lack sufficient training, although they do often
communicate about issues when they arise. But they often have little
information to work with, since everything from advisory opinions to
investigations
to hearings are kept secret, unless someone leaks information to the
press. 
 
Ethical teamwork is even more important within a local government, but
communication on ethics issues is usually not very common. Again,
there is little or no training in how to discuss the ethical aspect of
government decision-making. Nor is there usually leadership on the
issue, or cooperation with the ethics commission to facilitate such
discussions. The result is that ethical decisions are made, for the
most, either alone or with colleagues who either have little knowledge
about government ethics or do not want to seem judgmental toward their
friend. Ethical decisions are also not made on an everyday basis, but
only when something serious comes up, often only when someone is under
attack,
which is the worst time to make such decisions. 
 
One of the best things about open discussion of ethics issues in
government is that it empowers subordinates. In a poor
ethics environment, subordinates know what is going on, but are afraid
to say anything. Open discussion removes the fear and allows
subordinates to say what their superiors, who tend to face conflict
situations, should hear. Empowered subordinates, in turn, make it much
harder for higher-level officials to deal irresponsibly with their
conflicts. It's a win-win situation. 
 
This sort of "constructive program" is the most important and effective, as well as the most unheralded, part of
nonviolence. 
 
Leading By Example 
What can officials themselves do to help create a constructive program?
Besides supporting the open discussion of ethics issues, the most important thing they can do is lead by example. People tend to
take cues from higher-level officials. If they are secretive, arrogant,
or intimidating, mid-level officials will be secretive, arrogant, and
intimidating. If they are open, civil, and understanding, mid-level
officials are more likely to be open, civil, and understanding. 
 
On a regular basis, rather than just when scandals arise, high-level
officials should lead the discussions of ethics issues. And
they
should practice what Nagler calls "the habit of truth." This goes
beyond not lying to include being honest about what goes on in
government, talking openly about priorities and the budget process,
responding directly to questions from the public, and the like. 
 
Officials can also make decisions that effectively dare others to
follow them down an unpopular but ethical path. Here's a concrete
example. Former Louisiana governor and congressman Buddy Roemer has
announced a campaign for president. Here are the first words you find
when you visit the <a href="http://www.buddyroemer.com/?cdtrack_creative=1e47ea48-1207-44f3-a288-ea…; target="”_blank”">Roemer
for
President
website</a>:<ul>

Do you want a President free to lead? Today, real people don't have a
voice in Washington, D.C. Special interest money controls the
discussion.</ul>

He could have stopped there or gone on to say more about the need to
have public financing that includes contribution limits and full
disclosure of contributions. But instead he continues:<ul>

While I look forward to sharing my views on the issues as I explore a
candidacy for President of the United States, I will make one
commitment to you today. I will take no PAC money. I will take no
special interest money. I will accept no contribution greater than
$100. And I will report every contribution, however small, regardless
of whether federal law requires it.</ul>

That last phrase is the most important one: "regardless of
whether federal law requires it." This is recognition that ethics laws,
including campaign finance laws, are minimum requirements. Just because
it's legal to accept PAC money or contributions over $100, that doesn't
mean you have to accept them yourself. 
 
Of course, without a public financing program, anyone who truly
believes he is electable will not want to give up any advantage.
Elections are all about winning, not leading. What Roemer is saying is
that elections are about leading, about setting an example. If he
loses, he will still have won, because he will have made a point. And
maybe one or more other candidates will follow his lead, wholly or
partially. But at least the question will, hopefully, be asked of other
candidates: why are you taking large contributions from special
interests and their PACs? Why aren't disclosing all your contributions? 
 
Please don't take this as support for Roemer. I know little else about
him. But this is a great example of what anyone running for office or
sitting in office can do to move their city, county, state, or the
nation toward more ethical behavior in a constructive way.
It is also an example of thinking outside the box, which is the topic
of my next blog post on nonviolence and government ethics. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Nonviolence and Government Ethics II – Teamwork and Leading By Example

Share This Page