What Is the Foundation of Bureaucratic Ethics?

¶ … Bureaucratic Ethics

If democracy and the concept of democratic governance is the foundation of bureaucratic ethics, do administrators and public officials relate to the U.S. Constitution in that sense? Are ethical behaviors by those in public office the result of the creation and the practice of democracy? Many of those who are elected to public office must take an oath to abide by the principles contained in Constitution of the United States, but are those individuals truly ethically committed to the principles while they engage in democratic governance? This paper takes the position that while democratic governance (the Constitution) should be understood and practiced as the foundation for .ethical behavior that is not always the case. Indeed, ethical behavior on the part of the press in the United States (which is a bureaucracy in its own right), which John Rohr alludes to, is unfortunately more rare than not.

The Constitution in Public Administration: A Report on Education

In 1982 the National Endowment for the Humanities launched a project that would make constitutional studies part of the curriculum at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and three reasons were presented as justification for this. The first reason is that while public administrators take an oath (which means they will "uphold" the U.S. Constitution), they aren't taking it because means they will obey a law (White, et al., 1982). They are taking that oath because is it more about the "supremacy of the Constitution" than it is about a basic law -- the Constitution is the ultimate law because it reflects all other laws, White writes. But, he adds, does that administrator or public official that takes the oath really understand the "constitutional heritage" that he or she is sworn to live up to? That is the most pertinent question that White presents. In other words, how much do public officials and administrators really know about the Constitution they are sworn to defend and live up to? The implication is that there is a gap between taking the oath and understanding what that oath really implies vis-a-vis ethical behaviors.

The second reason for the new curriculum relates to the need for students to dig into the relationship between the "administrative state" (bureaucracy) and the Constitution. And the third reason is similar to the second reason: professionals in the field of administration would "…do well to examine the constitutional underpinnings of our field" (White, 430). It would seem that White is simply pointing out that mindlessly taking an oath because it is part of one's job means missing the point of the ultimate law of the land -- the Constitution.

The article by Rohr (2007-8) examines the executive powers that the U.S. president is given by the Constitution, and compares it to constitutional powers given administrations in Spain, France and the Czech Republic. Rohr also mentions that there is a stronger ethical approach to freedom of the press than in the U.S.

It is interesting that Rohr notes how the French approach freedom of the press vs. how the U.S. governs freedom of the press. In France a person has a "right to reply" when attacked or otherwise mentioned in the press, but no such provision exists in the United States. And in France journalists must be proven to be qualified, and they get a card which amounts to a license to practice their trade. Journalists are given powerful status in France, and they even get tax breaks (if they are legitimate).

Here in the U.S., anyone can write a blog and get access to events and personalities on the basis that they are "press"; this has led to some outrageously false accusations in the media. For example, the attacks on President Barack Obama, launched by "bloggers" and right wing radio talk show hosts, include the false notion that he wasn't born in the United States and that he is a Muslim. According to a Huffington Post article, "One in six Americans believe Obama is a Muslim" (Huffington Post, 2012), and 25% of Republicans surveyed believe Obama "may be the Anti-Christ" (Sunday Times, 2010). In France a licensed reporter would never get away with promoting lies such as these.