Introduction

“To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man” (Hamlet. Act 1. Scene 3 78-82)

This blogg looks at the thorny question of standards in public office. Whether those who choose to put themselves forward as leaders in the public domain, whether elected or otherwise, have a greater responsibility to act both in their professional and personal lives with the very highest degree of integrity. There is no doubt that those who rise to great office have substantial perks both financially and otherwise and generally, in the past, this has always been accompanied by an unwavering sense of duty and an acute sense of awareness with regards to their roles and responsibilities.

Yet there is now growing evidence of people entering the higher echelons of public office who clearly lack both integrity and moral and ethical principles. There is also a growing view that their dishonourable behaviour is starting to undermine the trust and confidence in many of the key institutions they represent. Now from the outset let’s make it clear and recognise that we are all human and that we are all entitled to make mistakes. That goes without saying and “let him with no sin cast the first stone” but in many of the reported instance we see evidence of persons in position of power acting in their own self interest driven by selfishness and personal gain. By putting themselves first, not only do they bring shame upon themselves but, quite often, they also undermine the dignity of their high office.

And despite the often heard whine of people “being entitled to a private life” if the behaviour in question cuts across their public office and is totally at odds with the comments and opinions they broadcast then this hypocrisy should be exposed. For this is the very hear of the issue. By choosing to live one way but presenting themselves to the public in another, they pretend to have virtues that they do not hold. If the individual in question demonstrates that he dishonest and cannot be trusted in his private life then this should be taken into consideration when weighing up his sincerity when he makes promises publicly.

Scandals involving politicians and other senior public servants make the headlines because journalists vigorously assert their duty to ferret out anything that bears on the character of such individuals. And the principle reason for caring about the moral conduct of public figures is that their behaviour sets the tone for the rest of society. If they misbehave and get away with it, then every else will feel that they, too, can simply please themselves. Yet in some, quite sadly, personal integrity is a disappearing virtue and personal standards are tumbling in a society willing to sacrifice it all on the altar of self-indulgence.
However let us not fool ourselves into thinking that people fall victim to social circumstances that it is outside of their control. It is not our times or society that is to blame for a lack of personal restraint nor can the often-heard whine, "but everyone's doing it”, justify such behaviour.

If the truth were known it comes down to a lack of character, that combination of moral qualities that demonstrate honour and virtue and make us the person we really are. Quite simply it is often the difference between what “we want to do” and “what we ought to do”.

Is it therefore unrealistic to expect that those who aspire towards the highest public offices in the land act both ethically and with the greatest degree of integrity in all parts of their lives? For those that seek the most powerful positions in society and those who can influence change in the lives of others through public service, must realise that there is a moral threshold, which, if crossed, will inextricably damage their credibility as a leader

Yet, even in this deeply non-judgmental age it seems we are plummeting to new depths and we are seemingly prepared to tolerate discreditable conduct from individuals who bring their organisations into disrepute. However a growing number now believe that those who seek the rewards of high office, yet fail to understand the boundaries of such office, help to undermine confidence in our institutions by corroding both the values and standards that are essential in a civilised society.

Consequently leaders should never deem anything to their advantage that causes them to lose their reputation or respect for when they do so they also diminish the reputation and respect of the organisation they represent. Hawkins, for one, laments the loss of honour and institutional accountability and claims, “it is both tragic and destructive when leaders hold on to a position or to personal gain at the expense of their integrity (1)

For undoubtedly the ultimate test of ethics is whether we are willing to stand firm when it is not in our self-interest to do so. Lorenz reminds us “Integrity means being the same person inside and out, all the time, whether in pubic or private. It means keeping our commitments accepting our responsibilities and being fair with everyone (2) This desire for sameness and consistency of character strikes a chord with Kettle who reflects on the way some people try to draw a distinction between their public face and their private lives, he says, “The awkward truth is that the way people live their private lives does tell us things that can help us make judgements about them as public people (3)

Many parts of the United Kingdom are in the midst of an epidemic of social disorder and many now believe that part of this national scandal lays the failure of our leaders to have the moral courage to demonstrate civic responsibility by setting honourable and decent standards of conduct. Indeed ironically, McIIroy, for example, reminds us that the social elements of shame and disgrace are the driving forces behind New Labours Anti Social Behaviour Orders. However, he also points out that “such orders presuppose the existence of a moral community.” (4)

This social malaise is further evidenced by a damming report from a United Nations study, “Child poverty in Perspective” that placed British children at the very foot of an international table of well being after a comprehensive assessment of the lives of children in the wealthiest nations. (5) This scathing report produced by an organisation with no political bias, caused considerable embarrassment for the British Government and was another clear indicator of a failing society. Commenting upon the report the children’s commissioner, Sir Alan Ansley Green said, “We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don’t feel safe” (6) The case for the much maligned “role model” appears to be overwhelming.

Therefore is it hypocritical for the British establishment to lament over anti social behaviour, poor parenting, teenage pregnancies, drug abuse, binge drinking and the breakdown of communities into crime-infested neighbourhoods? When, on one hand, extolling the virtues of personal responsibility and on the other hand remaining totally indifferent to excesses of immaturity, lust and selfishness that are starting to unravel the refinements and achievements of civilisation.
Yet it would seem that we no longer care and the consequences of this "moral anarchy", already evident all around us, will no doubt further corrode the trust that remains essential to the democratic process. Trust, honesty and loyalty are precious commodities and the greatest fallout from a lack of integrity in the “me” generation is the wholesale loss of trust.

So set against this background, we shall consider what level of accountability should be expected of senior people in public life who are charged with improving the quality of life in contemporary Britain. Whether those who enjoy the benefits of high office and exercise great power on behalf of the state should display exemplary and unshakeable standards of integrity. Or whether we have gone beyond caring, blighted by a political correctness that forbids us from passing judgement on the conduct of others or whether the time is fast approaching to stop institutionalising shamelessness


References


1. Hawkins, J. 'What exactly does ethical leadership mean these days?' Ph.VII, No 3, Issue 12, Summer 2000.

2. Lorenz A “The Essence of Integrity” from Ethics Today (Ca). 2004

3. Kettle. M “Private Lives Really Matter” The Guardian, 30th November 2004.

4. McIIroy, D. Honour and Shame (Cambridge Papers), Volume 14, No.2 dated June 2005.

5. Child poverty in Perspective: an Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries. Unicef Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, United Nations Children Fund, 2007.

6. Ansley Green, Alan (Sir). UK is accused of failing Children. BBC News (UK Edition) Online 14 February 2007.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm