“Integrity” is a moral quest more than a possession; it is an attribute to be attained, maintained and exercised by an individual. That seems to be its basic meaning. It signifies a work in progress; one strives for it rather than possesses it.
In any case, it is a very useful word widely used in many different contexts, mainly to connote reliability.
When used in mechanical contexts like ‘the integrity of a car,’ the term proclaims the proper functioning of the machine. The automobile’s many functions connect in a predicably manner; it does what it is supposed to do; much thought has been put into the design of its parts, and their proper functioning is integral to the reliability of the machine. There are objective criteria for making that call.
As a personal attribute, though, integrity does not seem to tolerate such extras. Either a person is exercising integrity, or he is not. Whatever grey area there may be lies in the fact that outsiders can never really know what the actor’s aims and rationale in a particular instance actually are. To a great extent, individual integrity is a private matter.
Interestingly, when “integrity” is used for human organisations, for example, a corporation, we tend to mix the two usages. Should we see the corporation, with its assortment of goals, as a machine whose integrity is judged through how these goals are gained, or should we suppose that it is about its leaders; that if its leaders have individual integrity, then the corporate machine will exercise and be imbued with that quality?
The fact that we have vital corporate laws tells us that corporations must be judged by external means. Society has found it expedient to steer the workings of corporations with as little reliance on individual integrity as possible. Within the boundaries of those laws, corporate leaders are free to act as they will. In fact, even in the production of the automobile, applicable laws evolve to guarantee the integrity of the finished product. This applies to all social constructions and behaviours, be it marriage or family life, workplaces or road safety. Integrity is required everywhere, outlined by the messaging, the application and the letter of the law.
Collective Integrity
But what if we are dealing with lawmakers, with governments, with the public service? How is the issue of ‘Integrity in Governance’ to be approached?
On one side, governance needs to function like a machine. That is where it is a Bureaucracy, which has clear rules and processes in place, and where its functions are transparent and unbiased. Therein lies governance at that basic level. The biggest load in public administration is thus effectively handled that way. Governments are lucky in that we now live in the age of the computers and the internet. In fact, what characterises most administrative reforms all over the world today is the digitalisation of processes. This simplifies functions ranging from paying a parking fine to getting permission to set up an event tent for a party or funeral. The professionalism at this level is largely secretarial, working with digital programmes written by experts according to clear instructions from the bureaucracy about what are required.
But governance is not only bureaucracy. It is technocracy as well, meaning that a government is always in need of access to technical expertise. This can be situated within the public service or commissioned from consultants and external proficiencies. Integrity here relies on the merit of these professionals and how effectively that merit is judged and employed. Procurement processes come under scrutiny here, and integrity lies in legal and institutional oversight and relies on monitoring mechanisms being in place.
Measures to ensure integrity at these two levels of governance are well established, such as regular monitoring, open procurement with published contract data, limited tenures, regulated perks, watchdog independence and power, etc. But while the diagnosis and prescription are quite clear, administrating the medicine is the real challenge.
At the top of the governance pyramid, we have the politicians and their ecosystems of power. If we are talking about a democracy like Malaysia, then perhaps we can call this layer of governance “Democracy” since political positions technically come from the popular vote. Here lies the duty that every government has to provide common purpose and inspirational vision.
A Loop of Power
Political leaders sit uncomfortably on two chairs: the one where they oversee the layers and arms of government over the people, and the other where they are representatives and champions of popular interests.
The integrity of political leaders should be viewed firstly as that befitting the persona they present to the public and voters, and simultaneously as that suitable to administrator over the mechanisms of government. They are also the lawmakers, responsible for rules guaranteeing integrity in governance. Being in that special position puts them under greater temptation to break their own rules, and there, special measures are needed to keep them on the straight and narrow, most notably a free press.
It is in the final analysis not a pyramid of power we are talking about, but more a loop of power: A loop within which personal integrity and institutional integrity smoothens the exercise of power by the government on the people and the expression of consent or dissent by the people on the government.
A reliance on systemic integrity takes away the burden on the individual at any level in governance to exercise integrity. Integrity becomes systemic, functional and technical. Less a personal challenge than a professional undertaking.
Discussion
No comments yet.