Public Responsibility and Loyalty

Political life different from ordinary life:
• Usually not acting on one’s own
• Acting in a system that has life of its own
• Acting on the behalf of others (“of … for … and by the people”)

• “Hierarchical Responsibility”: Accepting Full
Responsibility
– the practice of declaring oneself responsible for bad outcomes simply because one is in charge. Since this ritual is exploited by high-level officials who do not expect to suffer any punishment, it has the effect of undermining real responsibility.
• “Collective Responsibility”: Sharing the Blame
– the practice of assuming responsibility for collective wrongs simply because one is a member of or otherwise associated with a collectivity. Blaming “the system.” The effect is to make everyone responsible and/or no one responsible.
• “Role Responsibility”: Doing Your Job:
– the practice of limiting one’s responsibility to the specific duties of a bureaucratic role. The effect is to deny any ethical responsibility for criticizing public actions.

Criteria of Responsibility
Cause:
– the outcome would not have occurred in the way it did but for your action or omission.
Knowledge:
– a “reasonable official” in your position would have foreseen the consequences of the outcome. One cannot act out of inexcusable ignorance.
Compulsion:
– the duties of your office did not morally prevent you from contributing to or correcting the outcome.

• Act publicly
• Act non-violently
• Appeal to principles shared by other citizens
• Direct challenge against law or public policy

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Hirschman, 1970)
Voice
(Protest)
Leak
Issue ultimatum
Exit
(Resign)
Speak out until silenced
Resign and disclose
Sabotage
(Disloyalty)

• Institutional decline is inevitable
• Institutions can recuperate through either
“exit” or “voice”
• “Loyal opposition” will stay and attempt to work through “voice” channels
• “Exit with voice” may sometimes be necessary for “loyal opposition”

• Professional ethics
• 1980 Coded of Ethics for Government
Service
• Whistleblower hotlines

• Presumption toward loyalty
• Judgment and accuracy in dissent
• Exploring alternatives to breaching loyalty
• Fairness in accusation

• 1972 Bay Area Transit fully automatic control system
• 3 Engineers independently discovered safety problems.
Found each other.
• Spoke to supervisors; numerous efforts to speak to
BART management. Appeals failed.
• Contacted member BART Board of Trustees who raised issue at Board meeting.
• 1973 3 engineers fired when complaint traced to them.
• BART trains encountered problems; one train crashed into parking lot for commuters.
• 2 engineers turned to California Society for Professional
Engineers for support. Society reviewed issue and reported to state legislature. Legislature investigated.
• Engineers had difficulty finding employment; suffered considerable financial and emotional hardships.