ETHICS IN POLITICS: WE CAN START WITH OURSELVES

Apparent conflict of interest has important implications for the integrity of government, the public service, and individual public servants. It is therefore a key focus of the values and ethics regime of the public service. Public servants are required in their actions to be as concerned with preventing apparent conflicts of interest as they are with preventing real and potential conflicts of interest.

A "real" conflict of interest is where a public servant's private interests are sufficient to influence the exercise of his or her public duties. A "potential" conflict of interest is where such a situation could arise in the future. An "apparent" conflict of interest, however, is where it appears to members of the public that a public servant's private interests could improperly influence the performance of his or her duties. "Private interests" are not limited to financial interests. -- as published by The Government of Canada

This post is as political as I'm ever going to get on Wrights Lane, but continual references to ethics and conflict of interest at the federal government level have increasingly bothered me to the point of taking it upon myself to do some personal checking of the facts of the matter. The results have been revealing to say the least, and indicative of politics in general today. 

Right or wrong, depending on your viewpoint, we learn that (un)ethical "crimes" per se have not been committed. What we do have have, however, are a number of documented cases where non-Criminal Code laws have been broken by recent governments and their respective leaders.

The Conflict of Interest Act came into effect in 2007. So while it is true that the current government has broken this law more than any other, the only one to compare with it is the government led by Stephen Harper.

In early February, the Conservative Party of Canada shared an attack ad on social media aimed at the current Liberal government. The video, viewed approximately 58,000 times on the Conservatives’ Facebook page, claims that Canada had never seen a government “break so many federal ethics and conflict of interest laws before” as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal majority. The narrator then says that the federal ethics commissioner has questioned three cabinet ministers—Bill Morneau, Dominic LeBlanc, and Jane Philpott—and investigated ethical breaches by Trudeau himself.

These claims are misleading, in large part because the Conflict of Interest Act, which governs the “ethical conduct” of public office holders, has only been in place during the terms of just two prime ministers -- the previously-mentioned Trudeau and Harper. Before the Conflict of Interest Act, there were no binding statutes or provisions regarding conflicts of interest for public office.

For the record, Trudeau’s Liberal government has been found guilty of breaking ethics rules on at least four occasions, two of those times by Trudeau himself. And, according to Democracy Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy group, three members of the Harper government were also found guilty of breaking ethics rules. (Harper himself was accused of breaching the act on multiple occasions, as reported by the National Post, but he was never investigated or found guilty.) So it is technically accurate to say that Trudeau’s government has broken the law more than Harper’s.

Additional context is necessary, however. Trudeau and Harper predecessors could not have “broken the law” in the same way, but they were found to breach ethical guidelines many times.

Past iterations of federal ethical codes, as described in the procedure book House of Commons Procedure and Practice: Second Edition, all did basically the same thing: set out rules for the conduct of civil servants, cabinet ministers, and other public officials. But there were no binding provisions that ensured those who breached the guidelines would be penalized. Conflict-of-interest or ethics violations were investigated on a case-by-case basis. Serious accusations sometimes led to the resignation of public officials, like in the case of John A. Macdonald.

And, to be clear, though breaching the new Conflict of interest Act constitutes "breaking the law," it is not a Criminal Code offence. Section 52 of the Conflict of Interest Act outlines that contraventions are violations, not offences. The current maximum monetary penalty or fine for breaching the act is $500, which only applies when pubic office-holders fail to report conflicts of interest in a timely manner. Other violations have no penalty attached.

Always in politics, an ethics fine line is walked to gain an edge and opposition parties, in an effort to blunt that edge, are quick to draw the public's attention to "breaking a law" that, as it turns out, is really not a criminal offence.

Oh, what a tangled web our politicians weave on Parliament hill!

So what I'm leading up to in all of this is to ask "What else is new?" The breaking or bending of ethical standards is, and has been, synonymous with politics for ever and a day and not unlike business-as-usual in public life in general yesterday and today.

If only we knew what goes on behind closed doors...

Unfortunately, political ethics and personal morality are not always aligned. Some would argue that politicians should stick to universal principles such as justice or fairness to better govern the nation. On the other hand, political realists would argue that there is no room for ethics in politics or that ethical principles that rule citizens’ behavior should not apply to politicians. In fact, it is recognized that political leaders throughout history very often had to make unethical decisions in order to advance the interests of their nation or faction.

Moreover, the discussion on the divergence between personal and political ethics becomes even more interesting if we take into consideration that these rules, norms, standards, and moral precepts are not set in stone but evolve over time. 

A large part of the political battlefield is focused on morality and ethics, which can become powerful tools for the legitimization of political decisions. Ethics are used as a gigantic stick with which people beat those who believe differently from themselves. We see how sometimes the pursuit of public welfare or “the good life” can be replaced by crusades against “evil”. And political goals are used to justify means that in any different context would be considered as deeply unethical.

Thus, we witness how the search for power, influence and reputation rather than a genuine desire to do good for the citizenry at large,  underpins many of the decisions made by our representatives. Sure, we frequently complain about the lack of ethics on the part of our elected public servants but what about ourselves? Does that not reflect our own approach to life today? 

If we truly and genuinely wanted to make the world a better place, we would begin in our own neighborhoods by being more considerate of others. Being more collegial at work and doing more to help those in need. Keeping ethics at the forefront all our actions and relationships. Being less self-interest driven.

One may well accept the reality that society is adopting a rather lax or complacent stance on personal ethics all the while pointing fingers at the assumed wrongdoings of others. If indeed we are not strict with the ethics driving our own actions in private life, can we justify applying blame game rules when it suits our politics?

What is it they say about people who live in glass houses...?

Do you think ethics and politics can be reconciled? Are we more interested in throwing stones? If ethics is to be restored in the political arena then should we, the electorate, not start with ourselves? 

Are politicians like the citizens they represent, or vice versa?

Of course they/we are!