PUBLIC SERVICE ETHICS IN A DEMOCRACY (O.G. Stahl, 1971)

Presented by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) to Dr. C. G. Song, Professor of Public Administration at Chonnam National University, South Korea under 'Introduction to Public Administration'. Date presented: 24Nov2010.

 

SUMMARY[1]

 

Key Terms:

·         Ethics

·         Public interest

 

IN TRODUCTION

Government officials and employees are not only committed to loyal and effective performance but are obligated to carry out a public objective – which in any nation controlled by the people can mean only such purposes as are arrived at democratically. Ethics are truly a part of competence, and they are a part of democracy. Writers commonly refer to the public service as if it were an occupation (e.g. law, medicine). As a matter of fact, it is a composite of all occupations many of which themselves embrace definite ethical standards. Practically every occupation known to man is represented in the American public service.

Within the public employment the group on which the greatest attention centers as to moral behavior is the occupations in which some degree of judgment or discretion is exercised in the execution of public policy. To be sure, the most influential public servants, when it comes to ethical performance, are the men at the top. They set the tone for an entire enterprise, and this article applies exclusively to them.

 

RIGHT AND WRONG IN PUBLIC SERVICE

In here, we will discuss some major issues when it comes to ethics in the public service.

A.      The Democratic Base

In a democracy, authority is derived from the consent of the governed. Therefore, public administration must serve the public in a manner that strengthens the integrity and processes of a democratic society. This fundamental principle has at least three implications for performance in a government position, especially as we move up the hierarchy to those of the greatest responsibility. The implications are: (1) that all the people must be served, equally and impartially; (2) that this must be achieved with full respect for and reliance on representative institutions; and (3) that internal administration in public agencies must be consistent with these models of behavior.

The civil servant and the politician should, above all, think in terms of the total welfare, the overall good, the long-range effect, and eschew the temptation to please just the individual or group pressing its case before him – this is a concept for “public interest.” As Paul H. Appleby said: “In nearly all administrative decisions the sense of virtuous performance is to be pursued by attempting to inject some increase allowance for the more public interest and some increased concern for those citizens not immediately present or heard.”

The responsibilities of government employees to the public, to the law, and to their current political leadership are tied together by the common bond of democratic consent. Thus, this concern should be the next focus to achieve better public service, which, we must consider the character of a public agency’s internal administration. A cardinal tenet of our democratic faith is respect for human personality, for individual dignity and worth. An organization is effective if its employees have pride in its work; internalize the organization’s goals; and sense a genuine and open opportunity to participate to their fullest capacity in attaining its mission. This is the importance of ethics to the organization. If employees have a good background of democratic practice and recognition of the dignity of man in internal administration, they can have a consciousness of and be motivated toward a democratic role in relation to the public. In other words, ethics begin at home.

 

B.      The Limits of Specialization

According to the English political theorist, Harold J. Laski (1893-1950), a political system which fails to keep the expert under control, he said, “will lack insight into the movement and temper of the public mind. It will push its private nostrums in disregard of public wants…. It will mistake its technical results for social wisdom, and it will fail to see the limits within which its measures are capable of effective application. The expert, in fact, simply by reason of his immersion in a routine, tends to lack flexibility of mind once he approaches the margins of his special theme…. Expertise, it may be argued, sacrifices the insight of common sense to intensify experience. It breeds an inability to accept new views from the very depth of its preoccupation with its own conclusions. It too often fails to see round its subject.”

The public servant who does not see round his subject may, violate the moral laws of balance, completeness, and sensitivity to the public will. The remedy of this can never be reached by arbitrary restraints or punishment: it can only be treated by a wise personnel policy that makes the fullest use of all the methods for broadening the perspectives of specialized staff – continuous training exposures, periodic attendance at professional meetings, and diversification of experience through new assignments, rotation, and teamwork.

 

C.      Loyalty to Leadership

Decisions of public agencies are rarely the product of a single individual. It is a shared process. It is also consistent with law and carefully followed procedures. But multiple reviews and checks also have their drawbacks: they take time; they inhibit maximum delegation of authority down the line – a cardinal principle of management; and they diffuse responsibility so widely that it becomes difficult to determine who did what.

Sometimes the employee finds himself in disagreement with his supervisor. But the employee should balance his thoughts in terms of the larger good. Generally, however, the issues are of a nature on which reasonable men can properly differ. Only when the employee has serious evidence of willful violation of the law, blatant corruption, or equally obnoxious misdeeds is he in a position to take his case outside the organization. This is true measurement of loyalty to leadership.

 

D.      Conflicts of Interest

It is clear that there are many subtleties and ramifications to the matter of ethics in public employment. One of which is most publicly known is that of “conflicts of interest” – the most important field of potentiality for good or bad behavior. Conflict of interest means any situation in which an individual’s private best interest (usually economic) might run counter to serving the public interest or appears to do so. This is present to all branches of government.

As in the case of other aspects of ethical performance, the most satisfactory approach to reducing the evils that might come from conflicts of interest lies in the methods for initial selection of personnel, in character investigation where that is indicated, in sound internal management, in training, and in all the other requisites of good administration.

 

THE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT

As often as facts have been pointed out, there is still a failure on the part of the general public to appreciate that a public service can hardly be expected to rise much above the level of its environment, and that, on top of all this, a double standard is applied to public officials as contrasted with men in private life. Many would concede that we expect higher standards of conduct from our public servants than we do from businessmen. In the private sector, if someone committed violations in the ethics of his organization, the public will not be so affected. But when people in the public service do the same violations, the public are shocked.

 

THE REMEDIES

The most common remedy is the establishment of codes of ethics in the organization. Codes of ethics have two virtues: (1) they emphasize the positive, not just the negative, and thereby avoid the error of trying to conceive of and block all the wrongdoing that might come to pass; and (2) they provide criterion, a measure against which unanticipated behavior may be weighed. The trend has been to have a common code for both elected and appointed officials.

Other informal controls include conscience and reason – it is influenced by human associations, ranging from religious affiliations to social or neighborhood inducements. The following thoughts are pertinent: “If administration officials are to appreciate the high role of the citizen and to accord him the dignity becoming free men, they must themselves experience the blessings of free men. Harassed employees – themselves deprived of the privileges and immunities of citizenship – will be ill prepared to accord to others that which is denied to them.”

The theory here espoused may be disputed by some, but it is very simple and clear: a proud public servant is a good servant. Our efforts should be directed toward building and maintaining that pride.

---

[1] Reference: Korean Association for Public Administration (1980). Selected Readings in Public Administration. South Korea: Da San Publishing Company. 187-202