You are here
Vague, Character-Based Ethics Rules Give More Power Than Guidance
Tuesday, November 6th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
A presidential election day is a good time to consider how vague,
character-based ethics rules can be misused.
According to an article in the October 27 Economist, the Iranian constitution, for example, requires a presidential candidate to have the attributes of "trustworthiness and piety." Iraq's requires that a presidential candidate have "a good reputation." And Singapore's president must be a "person of integrity."
The problem is not simply the vagueness of the language. Yes, it's hard to determine whether someone is "a person of integrity," is trustworthy or pious, or even has a good reputation (with whom?). But the bigger problem is who does the determining.
Singapore has a Presidential Elections Committee (consisting of the chair of the Public Service Commission, the chair of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights), and in both 1999 and 2005 it found that only one candidate was "a person of integrity, good character and reputation." In other words, it selected the country's president using character as a primary criterion.
Of course, the public can do no better. Who knows to what extent Obama or Romney are people of integrity? What is important is recognizing that when ethics rules are vague, more power is placed in the hands of whatever individual or body interprets the language (and, of course, in the hands of whatever individuals(s) or body selects the individual or body that interprets the language).
More concretely, when a conflict is defined as something that may impair a council member's independence of judgment, and there is no independent ethics commission, the existence of a conflict may be dependent on whether the council member is in the minority or majority party or faction, or is popular with her peers, or has a good relationship with the city attorney. In other words, ethics enforcement is based on power, not character, and certainly not on clear rules that government officials and employees can be expected to follow or clear advice provided by an independent ethics officer.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article in the October 27 Economist, the Iranian constitution, for example, requires a presidential candidate to have the attributes of "trustworthiness and piety." Iraq's requires that a presidential candidate have "a good reputation." And Singapore's president must be a "person of integrity."
The problem is not simply the vagueness of the language. Yes, it's hard to determine whether someone is "a person of integrity," is trustworthy or pious, or even has a good reputation (with whom?). But the bigger problem is who does the determining.
Singapore has a Presidential Elections Committee (consisting of the chair of the Public Service Commission, the chair of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights), and in both 1999 and 2005 it found that only one candidate was "a person of integrity, good character and reputation." In other words, it selected the country's president using character as a primary criterion.
Of course, the public can do no better. Who knows to what extent Obama or Romney are people of integrity? What is important is recognizing that when ethics rules are vague, more power is placed in the hands of whatever individual or body interprets the language (and, of course, in the hands of whatever individuals(s) or body selects the individual or body that interprets the language).
More concretely, when a conflict is defined as something that may impair a council member's independence of judgment, and there is no independent ethics commission, the existence of a conflict may be dependent on whether the council member is in the minority or majority party or faction, or is popular with her peers, or has a good relationship with the city attorney. In other words, ethics enforcement is based on power, not character, and certainly not on clear rules that government officials and employees can be expected to follow or clear advice provided by an independent ethics officer.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
