To everyone’s unsurprise, the whitewashers have had their day - Jowell has been cleared of breaking the ministerial code is.
But so what if Sir Gullible O’Whitewash reckons she really did obey the ministerial code of conduct? Rules set only a minimal standard of conduct. We should expect far more than this from politicians.
Put it this way. Our political system grants enormous discretion to our rulers. But any prudent person, before giving anyone discretion, looks for more than mere rule-following behaviour.
Picture the scene. You’re being interviewed for a responsible job, for which you have the relevant technical qualifications. The job interviewer asks: “tell me about yourself.”
You reply: “I’ve not broken any laws.”
You’ve missed the point. The employer is looking for someone who will act in his interests even when unsupervised. He wants more than law-abiding behaviour. He wants some sign of positively virtuous conduct: initiative, enterprise, diligence, the ability to win the respect of clients and colleagues.
Now, the discretion we – employers remember – give politicians is much greater than the discretion other employers give other workers. So shouldn’t we require even higher standards of virtue? We employ politicians with less care than we employ roadsweepers.
And Jowell has fallen well short here. Anyone who can be attracted to a crony of Berlusconi and do something that looks like money-laundering is acting ignobly - without virtue. She might be obeying rules, but only a prissy little prig would deem this sufficient.
Politicians shouldn’t have it both ways. Either they can demand huge discretion over policy-making. Or they can be held to standards as low as mere rule-following. It’s just hypocrisy to demand both.
There’s two points here. First, this is another way in which politics is not as businesslike as it pretends - business recognises that discretion should only be granted to those who merit it. Second, ethical behaviour is not about obeying rules – you can train a monkey to do that.
Comments