You are here
Nonviolence and Government Ethics III – Thinking Outside the Box
Wednesday, March 16th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Another way in which violence and unethical conduct are similar is the
way they are handled by the news media. Just as violence is generally
discussed
in terms of separate
battles and wars, day by day, unethical conduct is discussed in terms
of separate
scandals and individuals, day by day. And unethical conduct is
responded to in the worst possible atmosphere.
What this does is prevent an awareness of the problem of unethical conduct in general and what constitutes a poor ethics environment. In addition, like war, unethical conduct becomes a spectator sport. People curse or laugh at individual officials when they are caught. And the whole web of relationships involved is ignored, at least beyond the statement that "All politicians are crooks." Analysis takes a back seat to blame.
As Michael N. Nagler says in his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, "It's tons more effective not only to be working at the root of the problem instead of the leaves, but to be working there steadily instead of being caught by surprise every time there's a violent incident. … This process begins to work the minute we stop being taken in by the details." Replace "violent incident" with "ethics scandal" and you have excellent advice for the government ethics world.
In this blog, I try to deal with government ethics situations as examples of problems throughout the country. The names, genders, ethnicity, and political parties don't matter. What matters is learning the patterns, that is, recognizing what unethical conduct looks like, how it occurs, how its perpetrators defend themselves, and how one can respond to these acts and defenses in terms of laws, procedures, actions, and ideas.
This is the way nonviolence works. People who practice it learn its techniques and then apply them in specific acts that are not necessarily directed or limited to specific conduct.
The local government ethics world as a whole does not work like this. It consists of hundreds of ethics officers, ethics bodies, gadflies, good government groups, and other organizations, as well as many thousands of local government attorneys and officials, and journalists, all dealing with each situation practically in a vacuum, with little or no knowledge of how things are done elsewhere, why things are handled (or not handled) the way they are locally, and how to change the local ethics program. It is rarely even recognized that there is such a thing as a local ethics program, any more than most people recognize in the midst of threats that there is such a thing as nonviolence.
The lawyers who advise government officials know far more about techniques, and the officials know far more about teamwork, than those responsible for administering government ethics programs. It is rare that anyone with expertise is contacted by anyone other than officials involved in unethical conduct.
Dealing with unethical conduct goes beyond simply reacting to it when it occurs. We must question the usual ways in which the ethics process handles unethical conduct. For example, is it reasonable for an ethics program to use most of its time and resources on enforcement? Does an ethics commission have an obligation not simply to respond to complaints and requests for advice, but also to take the initiative in training, leading discussions, publicizing its advisory fucntion, making general advisory statements, working and exchanging ideas with other local ethics commissions, and recommending changes to the ethics code?
Acting unethically only requires selfishness and/or ignorance of what is ethical. And sometimes cleverness, which is usually supplied by lawyers. Acting ethically requires thinking outside the box, the sort of cleverness your average lawyer isn't particularly accomplished at. It requires not only critical thinking, but also self-critical thinking. It requires going beyond the written laws and procedures. And it often requires courage, which is the subject of my next blog post on nonviolence and government ethics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
What this does is prevent an awareness of the problem of unethical conduct in general and what constitutes a poor ethics environment. In addition, like war, unethical conduct becomes a spectator sport. People curse or laugh at individual officials when they are caught. And the whole web of relationships involved is ignored, at least beyond the statement that "All politicians are crooks." Analysis takes a back seat to blame.
As Michael N. Nagler says in his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, "It's tons more effective not only to be working at the root of the problem instead of the leaves, but to be working there steadily instead of being caught by surprise every time there's a violent incident. … This process begins to work the minute we stop being taken in by the details." Replace "violent incident" with "ethics scandal" and you have excellent advice for the government ethics world.
In this blog, I try to deal with government ethics situations as examples of problems throughout the country. The names, genders, ethnicity, and political parties don't matter. What matters is learning the patterns, that is, recognizing what unethical conduct looks like, how it occurs, how its perpetrators defend themselves, and how one can respond to these acts and defenses in terms of laws, procedures, actions, and ideas.
This is the way nonviolence works. People who practice it learn its techniques and then apply them in specific acts that are not necessarily directed or limited to specific conduct.
The local government ethics world as a whole does not work like this. It consists of hundreds of ethics officers, ethics bodies, gadflies, good government groups, and other organizations, as well as many thousands of local government attorneys and officials, and journalists, all dealing with each situation practically in a vacuum, with little or no knowledge of how things are done elsewhere, why things are handled (or not handled) the way they are locally, and how to change the local ethics program. It is rarely even recognized that there is such a thing as a local ethics program, any more than most people recognize in the midst of threats that there is such a thing as nonviolence.
The lawyers who advise government officials know far more about techniques, and the officials know far more about teamwork, than those responsible for administering government ethics programs. It is rare that anyone with expertise is contacted by anyone other than officials involved in unethical conduct.
Dealing with unethical conduct goes beyond simply reacting to it when it occurs. We must question the usual ways in which the ethics process handles unethical conduct. For example, is it reasonable for an ethics program to use most of its time and resources on enforcement? Does an ethics commission have an obligation not simply to respond to complaints and requests for advice, but also to take the initiative in training, leading discussions, publicizing its advisory fucntion, making general advisory statements, working and exchanging ideas with other local ethics commissions, and recommending changes to the ethics code?
Acting unethically only requires selfishness and/or ignorance of what is ethical. And sometimes cleverness, which is usually supplied by lawyers. Acting ethically requires thinking outside the box, the sort of cleverness your average lawyer isn't particularly accomplished at. It requires not only critical thinking, but also self-critical thinking. It requires going beyond the written laws and procedures. And it often requires courage, which is the subject of my next blog post on nonviolence and government ethics.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
