Moral Competence in the Practice of Democratic Governance

Posted on February 6, 2008
Filed Under Peace amd Governance, Thoughts | Viewed 397 times

Here is a “think piece” from my guest-blogger, one of my 7 kids, who would like to keep anonymity (highlights mine):

Celebrity and Expertise

These two factors are usually the basis for electing or appointing officials in the government. By celebrity, one does not necessarily have to be an actor, athlete or a news anchor. It means that one has to be widely known for him or her to be elected, or just know a lot of the right people. And to be appointed, one has to be an expert and know a lot of things about a certain subject. So the two have a common denominator – knowledge. So knowledge really is power.

However, being known or knowledgeable is not enough for one to be a good public official. Although by being known, one yields a certain power over the hapless electorate, some officials are simply unqualified for the job. It is not anymore surprising to see starlets win over Ivy League graduates by a landslide.

On the other hand, being an Ivy League graduate does not automatically mean one will be a good public servant. Admittedly, there are people who are truly brilliant in their own right, but do not know how to translate their ideas into effective actions and results. Others are in a wavelength too far for people to reach them or relate to them. Sometimes, book smarts are trumped by street smarts.

Although there are some people who have charisma, are intelligent and know how to do their jobs, there is another factor that many of these people lack: moral competency. Some people may say that there is almost no room for morality in the cutthroat world of politics and the bureaucracy, I agree with Kenneth Winston that moral competency is essential in the practice of good governance.

According to him, the legitimacy of political institutions depends on general societal acceptance, and not coercive threats. There are certain states which are very clean, organized, and beautiful, with a disciplined citizenry that adores their leader (guess which country!), but this is due to the strict rules imposed by the government. When I see children performing in mass games on television documentaries, I can’t help but think that they are being brainwashed. It is as if every person is simply considered as a cog in the machinery of the government, instead of the government being a mechanism for the improvement of the lives of the people. But then again, those countries aren’t democratic ones.

Democratic order is emergent rather than imposed. It should come from within, and supported by the collective beliefs of the people. Although people will follow rules at the pain of sanctions, if the people do not really believe in the goals and objectives of the institution, then it will not last.

Aside from a good institution, what we need for an effective and long-lasting government are good practitioners. The institution is only as good as it’s weakest member. That is why there should be effective mechanisms for appointing or electing these officials. We people choose our representatives by election – which means that the majority always wins (unless there’s cheating!). However, is the majority really capable of making such decisions? How are we to know that the majority will choose rightly, and will know what is good for the rest of us? In our country, the vote of an individual is given as much weight as the other. In short, we have what is considered the “popular” vote system… so, like in high school, the popular people end up on top. The United States has a different way of counting votes, as they have the Electoral College system. Although I don’t really have a grasp on how it works, it seems that the weight of a vote is apportioned among states and certain electors are given more voting power.

Since I don’t think that this can be implemented in the Philippines, there are other ways of making sure that votes are intelligently made: to amend the constitution to provide for more restrictions and qualifications for voters and candidates. Since the former would be considered discriminatory and offensive to the people, then the latter would be a good idea. After all, even entry-level applicants are required to have a certain degree of educational attainment, why not the person who has the highest and most powerful position in the entire nation?

However, there are certain vital qualities of a good practitioner that cannot be measured by grades or by master’s degrees. As enumerated by Winston, these are: fidelity to the public good, the duty of civility, respect for citizens as responsible agents, proficiency in social architecture, and prudence. And I agree with him—These attributes are overlooked more often than not.

Fidelity to the Public Good

I consider this one of the most important characteristic. Not to generalize, but there are individuals who are in it for personal gain. Some may make decisions based on how much they would be benefited, or how only certain people will be benefited. It is important to reconcile partial with general perspectives. Also, although officers are bound by orders of their boss, how would they act if these are incompatible with the mandates of their office? A certain degree of selflessness and knowing how to prioritize is needed.

The Duty of Civility

The decisions of officials affect a large number of people. Their actions affect not only themselves, but also those who they are responsible for. Thus, they are obligated to reach out beyond what is personal—meaning deciding not merely on the basis of his own opinions, but taking into consideration the needs of others as well. He must act not only in accordance with his own conscience, but also with the public conscience. Winston is right in saying this, since our officials are also our representatives. Decisions and actions should be in accord with universal reasoning, not merely individual or personal.

Respect for Citizens as Responsible Agents

Power cannot be exercised by one person alone. Responsibility has be shared with the rest of the citizenry. The problem is that the government sometimes uses coercion to direct the people what to do. Winston is correct in saying that the process should be facilitative instead of directive. If sanctions and incentives are the only ones that motivate people, then they wouldn’t put their whole heart into their work. They should be actively engaged in the decision-making processes, and allowed to do their jobs as persons – not as mere parts of a machine.

Proficiency in Social Architecture

If there is one thing that is as important as skill, it is competence. There are people that are learned, but do not know how to work well and lead well. A good practitioner must know how to adapt to certain situations and think out of the box when the need arises. He has a responsibility to serve the substantive social ends, and not merely do the job that is laid out before him just for the sake of doing it.

Prudence

It is an old-fashioned term that is rarely used. Modern people tend to focus on innovation. But prudence is practical wisdom used in making sound moral judgments. It’s what separates good practitioners from the bad ones. Some may say that the end justifies the means, but it doesn’t. Practitioners must be able not only to do things right, but to do things the right way. Morals and ethics must still be intact—just because one is in the government does not mean that he has to sell his soul.

Ultimately, I actually think that Winston’s enumeration is very good. He was able to focus on the things that mean a lot, but are rarely given importance. Just because they are not concrete or can’t be quantitatively measured does not mean that they should be set aside. Because even if it’s in a children’s book, it still holds true—that what is essential is invisible to the eye.

Comments

2 Responses to “Moral Competence in the Practice of Democratic Governance”

chiara on February 6th, 2008 2:44 pm

clap clap i like it. may pag-asa pa ba ang pilipinas?
chase on February 7th, 2008 9:12 pm

That is a nice piece. Hopefully soon that the Philippines can be a more stable country.

Leave a Reply