For discussing virtues in the context of civil service conduct, we need to classify them into various categories. Thus, we can think of family virtues, aesthetic virtues, intellectual virtues, religious virtues, administrative virtues, organizational virtues and professional virtues. Our main concern is, however, with administrative virtues which civil servants have to cultivate in theirindividual capacity.
There can be no watertight separation between virtues. Some virtues overlap or go together. Intellectual virtues are concerned with truth, commitment to logical and empirical procedures and reliance on reason rather than on wayward emotions. These are as necessary in a civil servant’s personal as in official life. But aesthetic virtues such as literary or cultural taste and the ability of appreciating works of art are only marginally relevant to civil service functions. Again, religious virtues are peripheral to the official concerns of civil servants. But when free from sectarianism and fanaticism, religious virtues can strengthen the moral convictions of civil servants and their commitment to public duty.
Recent Views on Ethics for Civil Servants
In recent years, many writers outlined the qualities desirable in civil servants. These qualities are derived fromcertaintheoretical perspectives.It is the changes in theorywhichled to newperceptions on the virtues of civil servants. Now, we will outline the views of a few writers which reflect the contemporary trends. Later, we will also discuss the new theories of public administration from which these trends arose.
Views of Stephen K. Bailey
Stephen K. Bailey has identified three essential attitudes and three moral qualities which civil servants should possess. These can help bureaucrats in solving the moral dilemmas they often face. Moral dilemmas are situations which involve conflict between two or more moral values. It is not possible to take a decision which satisfies both the moral criteria. If one criterion is accepted, the other one will have to be discarded.
As regards attitudes, civil servants should recognise three features of their work situation
1. There is moral ambiguity both in individual behaviour and public policies. Individual behaviour is ofteninconsistent.Publicpoliciesevenwhencarefullywordedlendthemselves
to more than one interpretation in many situations. This is amply illustrated by court proceedings.
2. In public service, moral priorities are often guided by the requirements of specific situations rather than by abstract general principles. Hence, public servants need to analyse the concrete circumstances of any situation before applying general rules. These may have to be adapted to certain atypical situations. They have to guard against the fallacy of ‘one size fits all’.
3. Administrative procedures ensure that decisions are made in a proper manner. But procedures are paradoxical. Paradox is an idea that is logically self-contradictory and may offend commonsense. Administrative procedures are not paradoxical in this sense. But at times, they are self-defeating. Public servants have to be sensitive to this aspect. Otherwise, theirdecisions may comply with procedures without being just or equitable. This is a source of common complaints against rigid government procedures.
The above three attitudes are cognitive or intellectual. They have to be matched by three moral qualities–optimism, courage and fairness tempered with charity. Although these qualities are self evident, we may elaborate them briefly in the context of administrative situations. Anyone who wants to make headway with new or innovative methods faces stiff resistance in most organizations. No one tries to deliberately scuttle new ways of doing things. But bureaucratic organizations are inherently rigid, conservative and sluggish. Further, there is a current of deep seated cynicism in many individuals. Even in these circumstances, civil servants have to be optimistic.
Bureaucrats need courage to stand up for their principles and withstand immoral or illegal pressures. In this regard, a distinction between a good character and a strong character is very relevant. Unless good intentions are accompanied by strong character, they will not bear fruit. It is a common lament that good people often lack courage of conviction. Virtues unaccompanied by courage will amount nothing in practice. In the words of WB Yeats, we often find that: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”.
As already noted, bureaucratic decision making is rule based. Much as politicians and public abhor them, rules ensure objectivity, fair play and largely exclude personal prejudices and preferences in decision-making. They follow the principle of equal treatment as embodied in the statement, “what is sauce for goose is sauce for gander”. But sometimes rules, simply because they can never cover all contingencies, leave out genuinely deserving individuals. Necessary exceptions have to be made while applying rules in such cases. Secondly, the penalty may be harsh having regard to the circumstances of a case. Hence, rules have to be implemented with consideration.
Views of Kathryn Denhardt
We next outline the views of Kathryn Denhardt. According to Kathryn Denhardt honour, benevolence and justice are the foundations of morals in public administration. Honour is the foremost among them since it underlies the trust and confidence of people in public service. Honour as a virtue encompasses magnanimity or broad-mindedness, honesty, and always acting with high moral standards.Benevolence is thetendency of doing well by others, sympathy, enthusiasm anddevotion to service. It is concern forothers whichenables men to transcendtheirselfish and narrowinterests.
Kathryn Denhardt regards justice as respect for and consideration for the worth and dignity of every individual. Civil servants have to not only ensure the equality and dignity of individual citizens but also actively encourage their participation in the process of governance.
Terry L. Cooper’s Ideas
Terry L. Cooper also lists, in Hierarchy, Virtue, and the Practice of Public Administration, the internal and external qualities that should characterize good public administration. He refers to three broad realms of obligation (duties) applicable to public servants. One is the obligation to pursue public good; the second is the obligation to authorize appropriate processes and procedures; and the third is the obligation to colleagues.
It is axiomatic that civil servants have to pursue public interest. They should not support partisan agendas or promote the interests of particular industrial or business groups. Public systems frequently come under the influence of powerful lobbies. Politicians are especially prone to such pressures. Public servants have to safeguard common interest and general social well-being.
We have seen that public systems need appropriate procedural regulations to ensure that decisions are taken objectively and without personal idiosyncrasies. Procedures require flexibility so that unusual but deserving cases are dulyconsidered.
David K Hart’s Views
Cooper and N. Dale Wright traced the aspects of good character as applicable to public servants in Exemplary Public Administrators. In this book, they give an account of individuals who devoted their lives to public service. The lives of such devoted individuals provide appropriate principles and moral guidance to public servants.
David K Hart propounded the idea of ‘benevolent bureaucrat’ and ‘moral exemplar’. Moral exemplar is one who serves as a model of ideal morality. Hart distinguishes public administration from business enterprise. Public servants, as compared to business managers, strive for a higher purpose. They also need different personal traits and higher moral qualities than those of business managers. Hart describes public administration as a moral endeavour.
As public administration is a moral endeavour, public servants need a unique moral character and commitment to certain moral duties. The list of moral qualities which Hart mentions include: superior prudence, moral heroism, love of humanity, trust in common people, and a continuing effort towards moral improvement. Superior prudence is an idea based on the writings of Adam Smith, the founder of economics. Superior prudence consists of incorporating the duty of a virtuous citizen in one’s conduct, and then transcending it by seeking nobler goals than mere individual achievement. This superior prudence requires that the public servant should discipline his will and acquire self- command. This self-directed superior prudence is the main trait of an honourable bureaucrat.
Further, an honourable bureaucrat needs to cultivate four more virtues. First, moral heroism or courage is necessary so that a civil servant can remain steadfast in his moral convictions and withstand wrongful pressures or oppose immoral policies. Secondly, love of people will enable public servants to provide services to people and care for them. They will at all times be ready to serve the best interests of people in their jurisdiction. Thirdly, public servants need to trust people. Even when intent on servingpeople,manybureaucratsshowlittletrust inthejudgment ofcommonpeople.This
approach is to an extent justified in technical areas. But in many contexts public servants have to take risks and act on popular judgments. Fourthly, constant pursuit of moral self-culture is necessary because higher positions in civil service need greater moral refinement. Nobility of character comes from constantly improving one’s moral conduct.
Hart also speaks of moral exemplars in an organizational society. For moral character in public administration, it is necessary to act intentionally and voluntarily. Such acts are exemplary when they have their source in genuine moral character. Exemplary or ideal public servants show four traits. Moral behaviour is not a onetime occurrence; it is a stable feature of an ideal civil servant’s character. A model public servant must act voluntarily and of his own volition; his acts should not just be the results of rules or compulsion from higher levels in administration. The ideal public servant, while not being perfect, will have very few faults of character. His activities should not be non serious with no real good to show for themselves.