Tweet
The clash between collective responsibility and self-interest
Sunday, March 06, 2011
The concept of collective responsibility has stirred debate at the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry.
In our view, the requirement of collective responsibility in any group poses for the individual member of the fraternity the moral issue of how much of individual principle, ideas and morals to cede to the unity of the group. It is a dilemma which every member of a group or organisation has to make on a daily basis.
At one extreme are dogmatists unable to accommodate any difference of opinion and individuals who delude themselves that they and they alone know best. At the other are politicians whose moral elasticity allow them to agree on the least common denominator of raw self-interest, such as gaining or retaining political power.
Several scenarios exist which put to the test the ability of the individual to maintain the integrity of his/her beliefs while subscribing to the fidelity of a collective decision of a group.
First, there are those who genuinely, unreservedly subscribe to the consensus which emerges in the group through some process of discourse or negotiation.
Second, those who for fear, expedience or subservience follow the leader of the group or go with the flow so as to offend no one.
Third, the obsequious who seek always to ingratiate with the majority, known in Jamaica as "wagonnists".
Fourth, those who disagree but defer to the majority opinion to ensure the unity and continuity of the group. This action is made easier if the decision is of little importance.
Fifth, those whose disagreement is so fundamental that they leave the group, viewing any other position as irresponsible, morally repugnant or detrimental to their personal interests.
Ministers of government serve entirely at the pleasure of the prime minister. Disobeying the prime minister or disagreeing with the Cabinet is to incur his wrath and, perhaps, an abrupt end to the minister's political career. This end is something few, if any, professional politicians are willing to risk. They must submit to the PM's way or else.
Few, like Hugh Small, the former People's National Party finance minister, have walked away over an issue of principle but many have been made to 'walk the plank' to oblivion. Some have resurfaced, some have been recalled and some have been rehabilitated.
Most ministers do as they are told because they are not encumbered by morality, principle or self-respect. For them, being in the Cabinet is more important than anything else, and exclusion, after once having a seat in that august body, is a fate worse than death. They do it in the name of collective responsibility.
Worst of all is to carry out instructions based on decisions in which they were not even involved. They do it because they were just mindlessly carrying out orders.
Where to draw the line is a moral decision for the individual. If nothing in their conduct exhibits integrity and none of their pronouncements have the veracity indicative of belief in some principles, then their judgement of right and wrong cannot be trusted. If they cannot be relied upon to do right, then society has to find some means of indicating that their conduct is unacceptable.
The challenge, of course, is to decide what and who makes that judgement on behalf of society and if so, to what end?
There is a price for doing right and a price for doing wrong. Politicians must be willing to do what they deem to be right and pay the price if necessary.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...#ixzz1FtmTKdeZ
Sunday, March 06, 2011
The concept of collective responsibility has stirred debate at the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry.
In our view, the requirement of collective responsibility in any group poses for the individual member of the fraternity the moral issue of how much of individual principle, ideas and morals to cede to the unity of the group. It is a dilemma which every member of a group or organisation has to make on a daily basis.
At one extreme are dogmatists unable to accommodate any difference of opinion and individuals who delude themselves that they and they alone know best. At the other are politicians whose moral elasticity allow them to agree on the least common denominator of raw self-interest, such as gaining or retaining political power.
Several scenarios exist which put to the test the ability of the individual to maintain the integrity of his/her beliefs while subscribing to the fidelity of a collective decision of a group.
First, there are those who genuinely, unreservedly subscribe to the consensus which emerges in the group through some process of discourse or negotiation.
Second, those who for fear, expedience or subservience follow the leader of the group or go with the flow so as to offend no one.
Third, the obsequious who seek always to ingratiate with the majority, known in Jamaica as "wagonnists".
Fourth, those who disagree but defer to the majority opinion to ensure the unity and continuity of the group. This action is made easier if the decision is of little importance.
Fifth, those whose disagreement is so fundamental that they leave the group, viewing any other position as irresponsible, morally repugnant or detrimental to their personal interests.
Ministers of government serve entirely at the pleasure of the prime minister. Disobeying the prime minister or disagreeing with the Cabinet is to incur his wrath and, perhaps, an abrupt end to the minister's political career. This end is something few, if any, professional politicians are willing to risk. They must submit to the PM's way or else.
Few, like Hugh Small, the former People's National Party finance minister, have walked away over an issue of principle but many have been made to 'walk the plank' to oblivion. Some have resurfaced, some have been recalled and some have been rehabilitated.
Most ministers do as they are told because they are not encumbered by morality, principle or self-respect. For them, being in the Cabinet is more important than anything else, and exclusion, after once having a seat in that august body, is a fate worse than death. They do it in the name of collective responsibility.
Worst of all is to carry out instructions based on decisions in which they were not even involved. They do it because they were just mindlessly carrying out orders.
Where to draw the line is a moral decision for the individual. If nothing in their conduct exhibits integrity and none of their pronouncements have the veracity indicative of belief in some principles, then their judgement of right and wrong cannot be trusted. If they cannot be relied upon to do right, then society has to find some means of indicating that their conduct is unacceptable.
The challenge, of course, is to decide what and who makes that judgement on behalf of society and if so, to what end?
There is a price for doing right and a price for doing wrong. Politicians must be willing to do what they deem to be right and pay the price if necessary.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/edito...#ixzz1FtmTKdeZ
Comment