|
|
Ethics in Government: There Still is Hope
| Article
# : |
16424 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1989 |
3,135 Words |
| Author
: |
Bruce Jennings
|
Many of the difficulties that plague the way our polity handles ethical problems in government stem from the fact that we focus perhaps too much attention on the regulatory functions of ethical standards and too little on their civic functions. This is why ethical deliberations at moments of controversary or scandal are so often conceptually narrow and impoverished, and so rarely stimulate us to reflect on and consider afresh the fundamental values and public purposes that a given office or agency exists to serve. As Aristotle pointed out long ago, ethical performance (or practice) is like techincal performance in some ways: Both must be judged in relation to some end or goal, and the importance of being ethical is connected with the importance of the end that is at stake.
When we discuss government ethics solely in terms of filling out financial disclosure forms, setting up blind trusts, or avoiding the "appearance" of impropriety, then we make ethics seem petty and uninteresting (and we reinforce cynicism, to boot) by forgetting why it is important and what is important about it.
An example can be drawn from the recent flap over President Bush's nomination of former Sen. John Tower as secretary of defense, and the Senate's subsequent rejection of that nomination. One of the interesting things about this incident was that it was defined from the very outset as an "ethics" issue, which meant in essence that Tower's idelogical or policy views were not the focal points around which opposition to him formed.
As the debate about Tower's personal conduct and his association with defense contractors went along, it become apparent that Tower's opponents judged that he had somehow crossed the line between conduct that might be questionable but was not all that uncommon, and excessive conduct that was beyond the pale--ethically unacceptable. This account has a ring of truth to it because, in fact, this is what ethical reasoning and decision making are ordinarily like. Ethical judgement normally draws lines and deals in shades of gray.
Two functions
Ethical standards perform two different types of functions in the American political system. First, these standards (whatever their specific content at any given time) serve regulatory functions. They protect citizens from the abuse of power and authority. They are the basis of ethics rules and laws that can be enforced against even the most powerful and high-ranking officials, as we saw in the Watergate scandal. These standards provide guidance for officials who find themselves faced with an ethical quandary that their own conscientious beliefs may not be sufficient to resolve.
In addition, ethical standards serve civic functions that go beyond the tasks of regulation and protection against abuse of office. Ethical standards serve, at least in part, to establish the legitimacy of government decisions and the use of public authority. The legitimacy of our public policies does not rest entirely on the fact, as the saying goes, that ours is a government of laws and not men. No such government has ever existed in a pure form. Legitimacy rests on the fact that ours is a government of laws that are made, interpreted, and enforced by men and women of ethical integrity, men and women who can measure up to an exacting set of publicly endorsed ethical standards and ideals. Without such
...
Read Full Article
|
|
