Ethics andPublic Administration - Essay Example

? Ethics and Public Administration Ethics and Public Administration Question 2 Morality defines the way in which one differentiates their intentions, how they arrive at their decisions and choose actions that their consciousness perceives to be right over what is wrong (Kakabadse, Korac-Kakabadse & Kouizmin 2003). The attitude or way of thinking that guides morality is known as ethics. Narrowing the perspective down (to either a particular culture or religion), a moral code would represent a structure of morality, where any teaching or practice within the structure would be termed as a moral. Politics, on the other hand, entails the practice of structured control over people on an individual or civic level by those in governance positions. The functions of politics range from making laws to negotiating with opposing political views in order to promote one’s views, to exercising force against enemies (which may include warfare). On the social level, politics is practiced from family units, clans, tribes and societies. On a broader scale, it is inherently present in local governments, institutions, states and international levels (Kakabadse, Korac-Kakabadse & Kouizmin 2003). In view of morality and politics, Machiavelli, an Italian writer, humanist, philosopher, diplomat and politician of the renaissance period, argued that the requirements of the two are not compatible. Although there are upright, incorruptible politicians, it is common knowledge that most require help from influential individuals or corporate bodies to get past the preliminary stages of elections. However, this help is more often than not to be paid back, which forms the basis of argument of this paper, which will support the argument that the requirements of a moral and political life are incompatible. Machiavelli’s basic argument is that politics and personal morality are two sets of virtues that cannot coexist in a single, ideal person. The concept cannot even be visualized due to the lack of an overlap between the ethical codes of public organization and personal morality. According to Machiavelli, any politician in office is elected to protect certain, defined interests. Inevitably, this creates factions based on interest lines from the politicians, citizens and sponsoring parties (Keating 1999). When factional conduct is pursued, it always compromises the goal of common welfare which politicians are ideally meant to achieve. Evidently, factions are, therefore, the results of both public and private corruption among the citizens. Machiavelli believed that to avoid the corruption, one had to choose between two sets of virtues. Whoever chose personal morality would have to give up any vision of an unwavering and prosperous society where everyone flourishes on what is rightfully earned. On the other hand, whoever chose politics would have to give up all hopes of quenching personal anxiety. One sees that Machiavelli’s thinking shows that although the ultimate goal of personal morality and politics may be the same, they are driven by entirely different sets of values that contradict each other and may lack rational, achievable solutions (James 2003). After officiating in the Florentine Republic as secretary to the chancery and being responsible for military and diplomatic affairs, Machiavelli’s arguments must have been informed by actual experiences. One of his popular writings, The Prince, was done after the recovery of power by the Medici, who were not in power during the time he served as secretary to the chancery. From The Prince, one can draw a picture of Machiavelli’s view of political rule without influence of ethics or morals, where the politicians are completely conscious of the institution of politics in exercising power effectively. Like many political philosophers, Machiavelli believes there is a correlation between authority and moral uprightness. However, he goes further to point out that the relationship is different when it comes to “legitimate” authority. Exercising political power can only be rightful when undertaken by rulers (politicians) with personal moral characters that can be described as virtuous. Therefore, ideal rulers are deemed to do well and earn the right to be respected and obeyed only when they achieve goals and are morally upright (Pinker 2003). This moralistic idea of an ideal ruler is what Machiavelli is correctly in disagreement with. He sees authority and power existing essentially for the sake of inseparable functions, but they are differentiated by the moral basis that judges the incompatibility of illegitimate and legitimate exercise of power. The determining factor is that any politician in power is inherently vested with commanding rights; conversely, morality does not grant one power and the moral individuals do not have automatic authority by their virtue of being moral. It is, therefore, agreeable that Machiavelli advocates for ethics, but also insists on the impossibility of merging the requirements of a political life with a moral life because the two cannot be put down in a set of compatible ideas (Jackson 1987). Political power is enforced as a right by public trust. However, it is not a rare occurrence for the exercise of a right to go against public trust, which translates into political corruption. Politicians will often (and immorally) misuse power for private, illegitimate gains (Sampford & Preston 1998). Government officials misuse their power and position to suppress opponents, influence trade, favour interested parties and even cover up police brutality. Machiavelli sees this as a requirement for political life; for one to be able to maintain office and status and be able to get the support of the able and wealthy individuals who influence the results of elections. Corruption in politics will vary from embezzlement, bribery, graft – to extortion, patronage, nepotism and cronyism. It often happens with (but sometimes without) the awareness of those practising it that it is against the requirements of a moral life. Such acts of corruption usually culminate into facilitating criminal enterprises, which defy all aspects of morality, such as human trafficking, prostitution, money laundering and drug trafficking. These criminal enterprises tend to be more diverse in high-income democracies, where they depend on the accountability and corruption levels of politicians (Jackall, R 1988). Referring once more to The Prince, one sees the significance of Machiavelli’s insistence on the concept of severing political philosophy from the teachings of morality. This is because in politics, corruption undercuts good governance and democracy, where proper processes are contravened and even sabotaged. This manifests itself in the way representation is distorted in policy making and the loss of accountability by corruption that took place in elections and is present in the legislature (Shugarman 2000). In the judiciary, the rule of law is compromised by corruption, while service provision becomes inefficient in public administration. On moral basis, corruption violates the principles of patriotism and the essence of civic virtues, which makes politics and morality incompatible. Machiavelli sees one requirement of politics as being able to learn not to be good. Clearly, no individual with an awareness of their moral obligations in life would intentionally learn not to be good. Essentially, there is no morally correct consequence from political corruption; resources are abused, attention is not given to proper procedures, public offices are sold and the government’s institutional capacity is eroded. All politicians are morally obligated to respect and uphold the government’s legitimacy, but self-interest often overrides and undermines the very legitimacy and democratic values entrusted to them (Haidt 2001). Moral citizens elect leaders (politicians) with the prime goal of receiving quality and developmental leadership free of immorality, especially corruption. Ironically, the only true interest of politicians is acquiring and retaining power. In that sense, the concept of legitimate rights of leadership does not add value to the actual tenure of power. Rather, there is a self-conscious practicality among politicians that morality and right on their own are insufficient to achieve and keep a political office (Solomon 2002). Machiavelli believed that political activity is defined characteristically by power, and it is, therefore, critical for any successful politician to learn and know how to use power. It is only through the effective (albeit immoral) use of power that politicians can compel their subjects to obey them and maintain a state of security and safety. It follows that authority cannot be solidly in place without the possession of power, whatever way it is acquired. Even the subjects do not always tag political and moral lines in the same manner. It is evident that most will only obey the law purely out of fear of the consequences of failing to do so, not out of moral calling. A significant portion of population will find some laws oppressive, but what drives them to involuntary submission is either the dread of the state’s power (through its politicians) or the exercise of such power (Grace & Cohen 1996). Power is the necessary factor that enforces morally conflicting perceptions of what citizens are compelled to do by the law. Citizens can only decide to disobey the law if they have the power to refuse to go along with what the state demands of them (Jackall, R 1988). Only the morally upright will defy controversial state laws and be ready to bear the consequences of such defiance. In this view, the logical way to define politics would be in terms of the superiority of the coercive powers of the state since there is no autonomous status to power in terms or a right to command. This can be substantiated by the apparent certainty of public life and political matters and also arguments that bring to light the inborn, self-centered temperament of human behavior (Weller 2002). Therefore, it becomes futile and lacks meaning to proclaim authority and a commanding right that is not deeply rooted in the grasp of superior powers in politics. Machiavelli pointed out that politicians who live and rule by their own rights will fade politically. On the other hand, those who impose their power and authority over their subjects are more likely to succeed in the rough world of politics. It is only through the exercise of power that the authority of a state and its laws are acknowledged, which makes obedience unavoidable, whether morally correct or not (Glover 2001). Machiavelli uses the concept of virtue sarcastically in reference to the personal qualities required of a politician. Such “virtues”, he claims, are supposed to enable politicians to accomplish great things while maintaining their statuses. Those are the two symbols of power for any politician. Politicians of the highest “virtue” will be forced by situations to conduct themselves in completely evil manner. Such situations of political rule dictate that a politician can never exclude moral viciousness from the sphere of possible action they will undertake as people in positions of power (Kakabadse, Korac-Kakabadse & Kouizmin 2003). Politicians, therefore, acquire an inevitable flexibility and those best suited for political survival must have the capacity to alter their conduct from moral to immoral and back to moral again as dictated by circumstances and fortune. This aspect alone eliminates the possibility of having a politician who meets both the requirements of politics and a moral life. In yet another of Machiavelli’s books, The Art of War, he talks of a general whose strategic plans included adopting varying battlefield situations as dictated by the changing conditions of the war. In the same sense, politics may be viewed as a kind of battlefield on another scale. Politicians, therefore, in a similar manner to the general, must possess the “virtue” to foresee which techniques and strategies will suit an upcoming political situation. This kind of “virtue” in the politics of power corresponds to the conventional virtue held by those who believe that moral uprightness is sufficient for one to gain legitimate leadership (Gini 2000). Cases of influence peddling, also known as trading in influence have been reported in almost all nations around the world. Essentially, it involves politicians selling their influence or rights over the process of making laws and decisions for the purpose of benefiting a third party, which could either be an institution or individual. Usually, such activities are in return of a favor that most probably got the politician into office (James 2003). Furthermore, it could be the only reason the politician was elected. In such a case, the requirements of a moral life were absent even before the politician achieved the office. In such a tri-lateral relationship, the politician is the one who comes out as an immoral individual. The third party’s role may not be of legal significance, although they are the target of the immoral influence. A politician does not meet the requirements of a moral life by selling his vote or power to decide to lobbyists offering the highest rate of compensation (Jackson 1987). Such politicians act immorally for the sake of powerful and influential clients like, for example, industrial groups seeking to block the passing of laws they consider to be a hindrance to their illicit operations. Lobbying must be regulated sufficiently in order to provide a clear criterion that renders trading in influence improper (Boston, Martin & Pallott 1996). Even in a nation where political leadership is hereditary, an incumbent leader ought to uphold sociopolitical institutions that his subjects have grown accustomed to, whether they fulfill the requirements of a moral life or not (Weller 2002). New leaders have a more demanding task in their ruling, because they first need to stabilize their newly vested powers so as to build a political structure that is enduring. They are often compelled to realize the social gains of security and stability in the presence of moral corruption, one that they may not be able to do much about. For effective (and not necessarily proper) leadership, those in positions of political power must understand private and public morality as different entities (Grace & Cohen 1996). Politicians, therefore, will be forced to be concerned with more than just reputation, but also be willing to participate in immoral exercise of power when the time is “politically correct”. In this view, Machiavelli was correct when he opined that a politician allowed the occasional use of deceit or brutality in The Prince. For instance, patronage may be viewed as legitimate when a new government assumes power and replaces officials in top administrative positions with their own supporters for the sole purpose of effective policy implementation (Shugarman 2000). However, it lacks morality and becomes corruption when incompetent supporters are given positions to reward their loyalty at the expense of qualified professionals. It is neither democratic nor morally right to pay for loyalty by appointing friends or relatives to public positions with the clear knowledge that they lack the required qualification. Most parliaments around the world remain imperfect as they are occupied by men and women not trained, morally or otherwise, for the political positions they were elected to. The cause of party unity engulfs a politician’s conscience, rendering them unable to betray whatever policies their parties adopt (Haidt 2001). To remain a member of their party, all politicians must without exception be loyal to all that the party encompasses and stands for. Individual politicians are, therefore, forced to deliver on the promises their parties made to lobbyists. Eventually, parliament ceases to be a debate arena for the common good and governance of the country and becomes an avenue towards self interests and exchanging accusations (Gini 2000). Morals and ethics cannot be present in such a parliament. A moral individual would only make promises they know they can fulfill; otherwise they would keep away from making them in the first instance. However, it has become a common phenomenon that politicians never live by this principle. A politician’s promise will only be a ticket to win a seat, soon to be converted to other interests once power is achieved. Reference List Boston, J, Martin, J, & Pallott, J 1996, Public management: the New Zealand model, Oxford University Press, Auckland. Gini, A 2000, My job, myself: work and the creation of the modern individual. Routledge, London. Glover, J 2001, A moral history of mankind in the twentieth century, Pimlico, London. Grace, D, & Cohen, S 1996, Business ethics: Australian problems and cases, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Haidt, J 2001, ‘The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment’, Psychological Review, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 814-834. Jackall, R 1988, Moral mazes: the world of corporate managers, Oxford University Press, New York. Jackson, MW, 1987, ‘The eye of doubt: neutrality, responsibility, and morality’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 280-292. James, C 2003 ‘Economic rationalism and public sector ethics: conflicts and catalysts’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 95-108. Kakabadse, AN, Korac-Kakabadse, & Kouizmin, A 2003, ‘Ethics, values and behaviours: comparison of three case studies examining the paucity of leadership in government’, Public Administration, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 477-508. Keating, M 1999, ‘The public service: independence, responsibility and responsiveness’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 39-47. Pinker, S 2003, The blank slate, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Sampford, C & Preston, N 1998, Public sector ethics: finding and implementing values. Federation Press, Annandale. Shugarman, D 2000, ‘The work of dirty hands’ The Australian Financial Review, Friday, 28 April. Solomon, RC 2002, A companion to business ethics, Blackwell, Oxford. Weller, P 2002, Don’t tell the prime minister, Scribe Publications, Melbourne. Read More