|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
A
ground-breaking study in 1989 focused on public service accountability
around the world, and stated that: "One of the fundamental
concerns of the modern state is the manner in which power and authority
are wielded by those who govern in the name of pursuing societal goals and
objectives. … It is obvious
that the more society is administered, the more power is concentrated in
the hands of ministers and public servants. [Through the performance of their several and
various roles as] … crusaders, policy makers, social change agents, crisis
managers, program managers, … public relations experts, … spokespeople …
in addition to the traditional functions of government, … public servants and their
ministers have acquired enormous power. Generally, public officials and
their organizations are considered accountable only to the extent that
they are legally required to answer for their actions.
… Within [a global context of public
concern and political responsibility] … public service accountability
involves the methods by which a public agency or a public official
fulfills its duties and the process by which [it or he/she] is required to
account for such actions. Viewed [in this way, public accountability
is] … a [broader] strategy to secure compliance with accepted standards
and as a means to minimize the abuse of power and
authority."
Joseph G.
Jabbra and O. P. Dwivedi,
eds., Public service accountability: A comparative perspective,
Kumarian, West Hartford, CN (USA), 1989, pp. 1,
5. [emphasis added.] The major element of
public accountability was thus identified as countering public officials'
power by holding them legally responsible for their conduct. The UN, of course, does not meet
this test, since it places itself above the laws that govern the rest of
mankind. Furthermore,
corruption is not just fraud and theft -- it has many behavioral aspects,
which means that it can and does occur, and must be dealt with, in any
organization or office on a firm but fair, and ongoing, basis, as
well-expressed in a 1990 book: "This volume seeks to
address [public servants, students preparing for careers in public
service, and] scholars … who seek …
to clarify our understanding of ethical issues and options. We also hope that a wider public
might take interest in a work which addresses the urgent tasks of
combating corruption and encouraging ethical behavior in the
public service. The [contents] focus primarily
upon those ethical problems and topics which are associated with
the concept of corruption and its cousins -- lying, evasion of
accountability, and the abuse of authority. We recognize that there are other
dimensions to the field of ethics, but the problems covered here are, we
believe, central to the subject and … merit this emphasis."
William L. Richter, Frances Burke, and Jameson W. Doig, eds.,
Combating corruption, Encouraging ethics: A sourcebook for public
service ethics, American Society for Public Administration,
Washington, DC, 1990, Preface.
[emphasis added.]
In the ensuing years
since these two analyses were published, corruption has received much
greater recognition and analysis worldwide as an urgent topic, not least
in the new UN Convention against Convention (see Other Major
Problems.) Perhaps the best and most robust
"template" for analyzing corruption patterns in public organizations,
however, is still the one provided by Caiden and Caiden in 1977. They begin by observing
that: "Individual and systemic
corruption Although [the literature has
increasingly] recognized corruption as a social fact, … [analysts] have
continued to think of it in individual terms. The conceptions … do not appear to
stretch to encompass the significance of … systemic corruption -- a situation where wrong-doing
has become the norm. … Such systemic corruption is found today in many
countries and jurisdictions … The key is not so much the techniques of
organizational method, e.g., bureaucracy, as organizational goals and the
qualities necessary to support and maintain them, viz., honest
administration and public accountability. … " Systemic corruption has not been
subject to much specific research. … Systemic corruption occurs
whenever the administrative system itself transposes the expected purposes
of the organization, forces participants to follow what otherwise would be
termed unacceptable ways, and actually punishes those who
resist. Deviant
conduct is so institutionalized that no individual can be personally
faulted organizationally (not morally) for participating, and dysfunction
is actually protected."
Gerald E. Caiden and Naomi J. Caiden, "Administrative corruption",
in Richter, William L, Burke, Frances, and Doig, Jameson W., eds.,
Combating corruption, Encouraging ethics: A sourcebook for public
service ethics, American Society for Public Administration,
Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 61-69 [pp. 66-67], originally published in
Public Administration Review (USA). 37:3, (May-June 1977),
301-309.
[emphasis added.] The Caidens then
provide an excellent and still very robust and relevant "template" of
characteristics of systemic corruption in an organization. IO Watch would
like someday to develop and present a detailed matrix showing how this
template fits the UN and its performance and accountability problems. For
the present, however, the following quote lists the factors that the
Caidens identified, and then indicates relevant subsections of this IO
Watch archive in brackets: "In systemic
corruption: (a) the
organization professes an external code of ethics which is contradicted by
internal practices;
[see Accountability and transparency in the
UN ,
Staff Rights? , and the UN Code of Conduct .] (b) internal
practices encourage, abet, and hide violations of the external code;
[ see, among others,
Non-implementation of the
resolution
, The Winner: "Free the Managers"
, OHR (Mis-)management , including Hodgepodge of rules and Monitoring , Piercing the Cloak of UN Impunity
, and in this
subsection, Management culture
deterioration .] (c)
non-violators are penalized by foregoing the rewards of violation
and offending violators;
[ see The Winner: "Free the Managers" and Staff Rights? ] (d) violators
are protected, and when exposed, treated leniently; their accusers
are victimized for exposing organizational hypocrisy, and are treated
harshly;
[ see Investigation efforts: Is the OIOS a fig leaf? , Inept "Administration of Justice" System" , Disappearing Whistle-blowers , Behind the Scenes , and Other Major Problems .] (e)
non-violators suffocate in the venal atmosphere; they find no
internal relief and much external disbelief;
[ see The Winner: "Free the Managers" , Staff Rights? , Inept "Administration of Justice" System" , and Management culture deterioration ] (f)
prospective whistle-blowers are intimidated and terrorized into
silence;
[ see Disappearing Whistle-blowers and Suppressed whistle-blowers ] (g) courageous
whistle-blowers have to be protected from organizational retaliation;
[ see Disappearing Whistle-blowers and Suppressed whistle-blowers : at present in the UN, quite simply, whistle-blowers are not protected at all] (h) violators become
so accustomed to their practices and the protection given them that, on
exposure, they evidence surprise and claim innocence and unfair
discrimination against them;
[ see Staff Rights? , Anti-harassment efforts , Unleashed Managers , and Piercing the Cloak of UN Impunity
] (i)
collective guilt finds expression in rationalizations of the
internal practices and without strong external supports there is no
serious intention of ending them;
[ see Non-implementation of the
resolution , The Winner: "Free the Managers" , UN Moral Values and Rectitude - For
Others , this entire subsection on The UN, Alone and UNaccountable ,
and Management culture deterioration .] (j) those formally
charged with revealing corruption rarely act and, when forced by external
pressure to do so, excuse any incidents as isolated, rare
occurrences. [ see
Corruption in the UN , Investigation efforts: Is the OIOS a fig
leaf?
, Unleashed Managers , Major Ongoing Flaws , and Other Major Problems .] The point to be stressed above all
is that few corrupt practices can be conducted without collusion.
…" Gerald E. Caiden and Naomi J. Caiden, "Administrative corruption",
in William L, Richter,
Frances Burke, and Jameson W. Doig, eds., Combating corruption,
Encouraging ethics: A sourcebook for public service ethics, American
Society for Public Administration, Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 61-69 [p.
67], originally published in Public Administration Review (USA).
37:3, (May-June 1977), 301-309.
[emphasis added.] The Caidens end with
an excellent overview of the complexity and dangers of systemic
corruption, both for organizations like the UN and for society at large.
This provides a good lead-in
to the next two major subsections, on Other Major Problems
and Answers: A Starting
Point: Individual cases of
corruption can be rooted out by the application of organizational
sanctions. … Systemic corruption cannot be handled so easily. There is no
guarantee that if the most serious offenders are dismissed, or if everyone
who is guilty is replaced, corruption will not persist. The old
patterns will continue with new players. … Moreover, in the wider
society, systemic corruption impedes rather than aids
change. (a) Systemic
corruption perpetuates closed politics and restricts access, preventing
the reflection of social change in political
institutions. (b) Systemic
corruption suppresses opposition contributing to increasing
resentment. Thus corruption, far from being an
alternative to violence, is often accompanied by more
violence. (c) Systemic
corruption perpetuates and widens class, economic, and social divisions,
contributing to societal strain and preventing
cohesion. (d) Systemic corruption
prevents policy change, particularly where this works against immediate
market considerations.
Individual or sectional interests are not the best guide to the
public interest. (e) Systemic corruption blocks
administrative reform, and makes deleterious administrative practices
profitable, e.g., induced delays. (f) Systemic
corruption diverts public resources and contributes to a situation of
private affluence and public squalor, especially serious where affluence
is confined to the few. (g) Systemic corruption
contributes to societal anomie in shoring up or transmuting
traditional values into inappropriate
areas. (h) The effects of
systemic corruption are not limited to a specific case: there is an
accumulator effect upon public perceptions and expectations which
subverts trust and cooperation far beyond the impact
upon the individuals immediately concerned. (i) Systemic
corruption is not confined to poor, developing, or modernizing countries,
but found in all organizational societies." … In contemporary public
administration, the issue is not so much individual misconduct in public,
serious as that is, as the institutionalized subversion of the public
interest through systemic
corruption."
|
|||
