Nonviolence and Government Ethics I – Disrespect

Faida Hamdy was a
municipal inspector in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia. She was not a very
respectful municipal official. So when she found that a young fruit
vendor did not have a license, she slapped him. She humiliated him
in front of others. The fruit vendor set
himself on fire, and this set the Arab world on fire, because the
same sort of disrespect from government officials was felt throughout
the Arab world. Disrespect
is a very powerful thing. And so is respect.<br>
<br>
Fortunately, the leaders of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt had
been studying nonviolent techniques, techniques that demand and
earn respect. And they successfully applied these techniques.<br>
<br>
I recently read Michael N. Nagler's fascinating book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Search-Nonviolent-Future-Ourselves-Families/dp/19…; target="”_blank”">The
Search
for
a
Nonviolent
Future</a>. Over the next few days, I will
be applying some of the concepts and practices of nonviolence to the field of government ethics. This
provides me with an opportunity to consider some of the most
important philosophical and practical questions in government ethics.<br>
<br>

Nonviolence and government ethics have a lot more to do with each other than you think. "Respect is a
powerful antidote to violence," Nagler wrote. It is also a powerful
antidote to ethical misconduct. Officials who show disrespect for their
constituents and subordinates are the people most likely to engage in
such misconduct.<br>
<br>
Local government ethics does not deal with violence, at least in the
literal sense. But it does deal with violence in the metaphorical
sense. Violence against the public trust. Violence against our
concept of government as of the people, by the people, and for the
people.  And violence against the respect and dignity people
deserve (this is the essence of Kantian ethics:  respect is
treating individuals as ends rather than as means).<br>
<br>
This violence takes many forms, including putting one's personal
interests ahead of the public interest (conflicts of interest), keeping
information secret (dealt with via sunshine, open meetings, and campaign finance laws),
misrepresentation, and covering up.<br>
<br>
And there is also violence against citizens, subordinates, and those
doing business with the government, which includes
disrespect, intimidation, and
blackmail ("pay to play" and misuse of subordinates).<br>
<br>
The disrespect, greed, and power hunger that leads to ethical
misconduct is similar to those that lead to
tyranny and war. And the result is fear, especially among subordinates,
fear
that seriously affects people's lives.<br>
<br>
One of the most important moments in my journey toward a career in
local government
ethics was when a high-ranking official told me that my town's
administration had to do what they did with the budget because people
in the town didn't
understand a town government's needs and voted against any increase in
taxes. I was struck less by
what he said than by the way he said it, with great disdain and
disrespect. It was like a slap in the face, only not directed at me.<br>
<br>
It doesn't seem to have occurred to him, or to his colleagues, that
instead of playing games with the budget, town officials could have
made an effort to educate the public about the problems facing the town
and the alternative ways of dealing with them. But when you treat people with respect, they might actually involve themselves in government, which many officials dread.<br>
<br>
One of the things Nagler emphasizes is that violence does not only harm
those it is directed toward. It also harms those causing the violence.<br>
<br>
Like power, disrespect and arrogance corrupts people. It's no accident
that the very same official refused to allow a discussion of the town's
failure to publicly bid out large contracts. This was not a case of an
ignorant public. This was a case of hiding from the public what
officials were doing in violation of the town charter and against the
public interest.<br>
<br>
Disrespect also leads to the
creation of a circle of people who know what others do not know, and
feel
obliged to keep it secret either to protect themselves and
their colleagues. So that when ethical misconduct turns
criminal, the circle of people who know is ready to accept it, justify
it, keep it secret, and intimidate anyone who tries to find out what is
going on.<br>
<br>
Is this really that much different than the circle of people around a
dictator,
or a tribal army in Afghanistan, or the gangs of thugs that operated in
former Yugoslavia? No one dies, of course, but circles of people
holding on to power and fighting secretive battles against their
"enemies"
can do great damage to the public trust and to our form of
government.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---