CASE 2
Suman was a young, idealistic development officer in a district panchayat. After joining the district, he studied about itssocial and economicsituation. He consultedvariousplandocumentsandlooked at the social and economic parameters of the district. He found that the district is relatively better off than other districts in terms of irrigation, crop diversification and industry. But its social indicators were poor with high infant mortality rate, high maternal mortality rate and low literacy percentage among women. Based on his analysis, Suman thought that large investments in the social sector will be necessary in order to tackle these problems.
Thepanchayat was an electedbody.It hasdecided to spend 40% of itsbudget on minorirrigation. Suman felt that the large allocation to minor irrigation will benefit land owning farmers and starve other social programmes.
What should Suman do in these circumstances?
1. He should tell officers to surreptitiously divert money to social welfare programmes under some pretext.
2. He should follow the Panchayat’s decision.
3. He should discuss matters with elected officials of the Panchayat and try to convince them of the need to accord greater priority to social sector.
4. He should reconcile himself to the economic inequalities and the power structure of the rural society.
Suman should not adopt improper means in trying to achieve higher spending on social sector. In fact, he should not give any wrong or improper instructions to his subordinates. He will be violating the principles of truthfulness and transparency. Suman is under an obligation to follow the public policy decision taken by the elected body. He can try to persuade them to his view. But he should not undermine their policy.
In the second alternative, Suman will be doing the right thing. But this is not enough in this case. Since he has studied the development problems of the district in detail, he should explain the position at length to non-officials in the panchayat. Young officers have to cultivate skills of communication, persuasion and negotiation. They should not give up on things without trying.
The third option gives the correct line of action. Here, Suman will be trying to persuade the non-officials of the need to give higher priority to social sector schemes. He should not assume, even before trying, that the non-officials will not take his advice. He would succeed partially even if they reduce some outlay on irrigation and divert it to education or health. In a democratic set up, one has to rely on discussions and negotiation. In any case, under the Panchayat system, as decision-making powers on policy matters rest with non-officials, he should not, as a disciplined officer, defy them in this matter.
The last option is a form of passive or fatalistic behaviour. Young officers should avoid such attitudes since they will undermine their initiative in other areas where they can act. One should not resort to abstract ideas as a means of avoiding constructive action.
Process justice has to meet the following requirements.
(i) Equality of access: All those concerned or affected by decisions have to be given equal access to decision makers, information and decision processes.
(ii) Impartiality: Public administrators should not be biased or swayed by extraneous consideration unconnected to the merits of the matter.
(iii) Transparency: Decisions have to be taken in an open manner after informing all the stakeholders and getting their inputs. Public participation in policy matters should be encouraged. Nowadays, proposed Government policies are first placed in draft form on websites and views of stakeholders are elicited. The policy is finalized after taking into account
the views expressed by the stakeholders. For example, Planning Commission placed the draft approach to the Twelfth Plan on its website to obtain the views of the public. Similarly, telecom regulator places proposed changes in regulations on its website inviting the responses of the public.
(iv) Efficiency: The process should not be dilatory but should result in timely decisions. Undue delay detracts from the efficiency of process justice.
(v) Participation and humaneness: Those who participate in the process or who are likely to be affected have to be treated with dignity and courtesy.
(vi) Right to appeal: Avenues should be left open so that the affected persons can appeal to higher levels in decision-making. Without such process, people will have no way of seeking redressal of decisions which they consider as unjust.
In Indian administrative system, many decisions are based on quasi judicial procedures. These are not formal legal proceedings as in courts of law. However, they follow the principles of natural justice. The persons concerned are given a hearing so that they can explain their point of view before a decision is taken. In the process outlined by Pops and Pavlak, the moral aspect of situations and the applicable moral criteria will be urged before the decision makers by the interested participants. In this respect, they resemble court proceedings. Let us note further that both models we discussed are silent about the moral criteria which need to be applied in any particular situation. In this sense, they are formal procedural methodologies. It is for the decision makers to choose the relevant moral criteria or yardsticks in any given case. We have mentioned some of them earlier.
The two methods of ethical decision-making we discussed will enable administrators to navigate through situations involving ethical dilemmas. As we saw, ethical dilemmas are situations which entail conflict between two or more equally cherished moral standards. In one of the steps in Terry Cooper’s method of ethical decision making, the administrators have to carefully note the moral values relevant to the problem situation. Further, while considering the possible alternative solutions to the problem, their underlying moral standards have to be made explicit. This process will lead to conscious adoption of solutions which factor in the ethical dilemmas. In the procedure which Pop and Pavlak propose, the process of decision-making will enable the stakeholders to project the alternativemoral viewpoints which administratorswill considerbeforetakingdecisions.
Ethical Dilemmas: Prima Facie Principles
W.D. Ross, a famous twentieth century moral philosopher, traces moral issues or dilemmas to conflicts between certain prima facie duties. Prima facie duties are commonly accepted moral principles. “Prima facie” is a Latin expression which means “on first view”. These principles point to initial moral presumptions on how we should act as moral agents. Presumptions are presuppositions or conjectures which are made in any matter. Presumption is technical concept from rules of legal evidence. Courts consider a presumption as true unless there is evidence against it.
A moral presumption means that a moral agent should act in a particular way under any given circumstances.But if there are special reasons or justificationopposingthe presumption,the moral
agent can ignore the presumption. Thus, if sufficient reason or justification exists, the presumption becomes inoperative or it becomes morally permissible for the moral agent not to act in accordance with the presumption. Ethical dilemmas arise in cases in which moral presumptions following from prima facie moral duties or standards come into conflict.
We have already mentioned various common values. We recapitulate below six prima facie principles to which most moral philosophers subscribe. It is conflicts between these which give rise to ethical dilemmas.
1. Principle of Honesty: Normally, we tell truth and expect others to do so. Apart from its intrinsic value, truth-telling serves a utilitarian function because exchange of accurate information is the basis for effective collective action in human society. If everyone in a group lies to everyone else in it, common action towards any goal is impossible.