Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Some thoughts for the new management

By Margaret Somerville - posted Monday, 18 November 2013


Moreover, to maintain the public trust, upon which "peace, order and good government" depends, politicians must develop a manifest culture of responsibility and must avoid one of entitlement. If democracy, as we know it, is to survive, we can't afford for "political ethics" to be able to be jokingly described, with at least some accuracy, as an oxymoron. Ethics must be embedded in all aspects of politics and not be seen as just an "add on" or a public relations exercise necessary to make the business of governing palatable to the governed.

Questioning the blanket promotion of change and choice …

As is true in Australia, in the last decade in Canada, so-called "progressive values" have come to the fore and their advocates have lobbied politicians and used legal challenges in the courts to try to have them implemented. A strategy for succeeding in having these values, such as always giving priority to respect for individual autonomy ("intense" or "radical" autonomy), implemented is to claim that all progress requires change and only those who are ossified, in one or another respect, will resist it. Such a claim based on the necessity of change is strongly manifested in the calls to legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. But this is a dangerous trend, which politicians need to resist, when the proposed change involves watering down foundational societal values, such as respect for human life and places our most vulnerable citizens, such as people who are old, frail or disabled, at serious risk of abuse.

Change, in itself, is not a virtue or value and the same is true for individual choice, the expansion of which is often the change sought. Rather, whether the changes and choices we make are ethical depends on how and what we change, and what we choose. Very often politicians can be afraid of being labeled "dinosaurs" or "Luddites", or "conservative has-beens" or "religious" in a derogatory sense, pursuant to a "label and dismiss" strategy employed by the "progressive values" adherents. Politicians need to take a principled stance and not allow the voices of "hard vocal minorities" to block out those of "soft silent majorities".

Advertisement

Values conflicts and moral courage…

As elected representatives, politicians undertake a fiduciary or trust based obligation to Australian society and fulfilling that obligation can take courage. It can take great courage to say "no" to something you believe to be inherently wrong, especially when those with power over you want you to say "yes" and the people with power over you include advocacy groups or the electorate as a whole. But society looks to you to have the moral courage to say "no" to what you believe to be ethically and morally wrong. Doing so can involve fear, just as the exercise of physical courage does. That is especially true when standing up for something you believe to be ethically required loses you friends or allies or not only affects you, as an individual, but also, puts those you love in a situation of risk or distress.

This possibility is particularly likely in relation to the social values issues that are currently the focus of hot debate in both Australia and Canada. Most of them can be classified as political "hot potatoes" or a "third rail of politics" – touch them as a politician and you are politically dead in the sense that you lose voter support from one side or the other. These issues include: euthanasia; abortion; same-sex marriage; regulation of reproductive technologies and related issues such as surrogate motherhood and "designer babies"; legalizing drugs for example, marijuana; how to treat illegal immigrants; an aging population and how to care for them, let alone give them the respect they deserve; access to healthcare; and so on.

There are also very strong currents of concern here in Canada regarding corruption in public office; loss of trust in authority figures especially politicians and the police; thoughts that democracy, as we know it, might be in for a big change; high levels of unemployment among the young and those aged over 50; violent demonstrations and confrontations; increasing disparity in income between the "haves" and the "have nots"; homelessness and poverty, both in Canada and Canadians worrying about this globally; and so on. Within my own immediate context, there is also questioning as to whether universities, as we know them, will continue to function and deep concern about the entire educational system, in general. These issues require long term perspectives, not short term, politically popular responses. Long-term approaches are often hard-to-sell, because they involve short term sacrifices and hardships. Consequently, implementing them requires political courage.

Avoiding breaches of ethics…

So with all those issues in mind, and many others I haven't mentioned, if I may be so bold, I'd like to close with a few pieces of advice for "Australia's new management team", which I've found over the years to be important ethically:

  • Learn to live as comfortably as you can with unavoidable uncertainty. Many ethical mistakes are made when we act prematurely to try to achieve certainty – we are then certain, but ethically wrong. Politicians are especially at risk of making this mistake. When you don't know or are uncertain, say so. People will respect you for your honesty, courage and humility.
  • Recognize when you face an ethical issue. Major mistakes are made, especially in the professional, political or bureaucratic world, when an ethics problem is mistakenly identified as a communications or public relations problem and dealt with as such. That usually results in its being spin-doctored which only augments the ethical difficulties: what started out as one ethical issue, becomes multiple ethical difficulties.
  • Integrity, authenticity and honesty matter and always will, especially for politicians.
  • Try to foster a climate of realistic hope, that is, hope based in truth. Above all, avoid nihilism, which destroys hope and generates cynicism. Hope is the oxygen of the human spirit. Without it our spirit dies; with it even seemingly insurmountable obstacles can be overcome. Moreover, to have the courage we all need, whether as electors or politicians, we must have hope – courage and hope are inseparable twins.
  • Despite how it might seem, one voice standing up for what is ethical really does matter - indeed, it can be crucial. One person can make a difference –in fact, it's often only one person who does. One of my fears for the future is that people will lose the courage to speak honestly, openly and with the integrity of their beliefs intact. We must have the courage to stand up for what we believe in, even when many others disagree with us, and politicians are very important role models in this regard.
  • You are also especially important actors and role models in re-balancing the intense individualism, that so dominates our present Western societies to their detriment, with concern and care for communities and society. And that concern and care must extend to future generations and societies – we must hold the future on trust for those who will follow us.
  • Recognize that moral risks should be given at least as much weight as risks to our physical safety and well-being. Moral risks are risks to our shared values, principles, attitudes and beliefs, what I call, collectively, our "metaphysical ecosystem". We have come to realize that we must protect our physical ecosystem and hold it on trust, because it's not indestructible; the same is true for our metaphysical ecosystem and you, as leaders in society, have a very important role in this latter respect.
  • We should keep in mind Thomas Jefferson's advice: "It's not our failures that count, but what we do with them".

Finally, to summarize my advice, I believe all of us, but especially politicians, need to cultivate three long-recognized virtues, which are of new relevance and particular importance at present:

Advertisement

 

First, hope, in particular for a future world - this requires honesty and authenticity in facing difficult situations and not making empty promises.

Second, wise ethical restraint – the old virtue of prudence - especially in the interests of the generations who will follow us – this requires a strong and healthy sense of obligation and an absence of one of entitlement.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Margaret Somerville, an Australian, is founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, Canada.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Margaret Somerville

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Margaret Somerville
Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy