Hart provides the philosophical foundations to the doctrines of the “New Public Administration”. This school believes that public servants should use their irreducible discretion (the minimum power they hold in virtue of their office) proactively in promoting social equity. This involves redressing the imbalance of power which exists in society. Power is concentrated in the wealthy, elitist and well organizedsections of society. On the other hand, the weak,poor and unorganizedgroupslackpower. They are at the margins of the society. Public servants should vigorously espouse the causes of the poor. This would be the main plank of a public servant’s individual ethic. The marginalization of the poor can be traced to interest group liberalism. In other words, government gives a free hand to special interest groupsinindustry, business and finance to freely pursue their agendas by removing regulations.
Hart bases his ideas on the views which the famous philosopher John Rawls expressed in Theory of Justice.The arguments of Rawls are long and intricate. He makes out a case for equity based on a highly theoretical argument. He begins with an ‘original position’ in which many individuals hold discussion about a just social order. These individuals are imaginary intellectual types or personalities who belong to no nation or time or age. They are disembodied, ahistorical and acultural minds who engage in moral reasoning in a completely disinterested manner. As they have no country or history or culture, they are free from any baggage such as preconceived notions or ideological predispositions. They can be expected to take a universal, non-sectional view of matters. Further, their disinterested position is strengthened since they do not know where they will fit in the new social order. Any such group will conclude that social goods or benefits should be equallydistributed unless inequality will benefit the least advantaged. Hart believes that from this central moral principle, a code of conduct can be developed for public servants.
Students can see that this conception of Hart will not be applicable to career civil servants in India.Theyarenot politicians(at least de jure), andpoliticiansinpolitical executivehave to formulate policies to redress economic imbalances and injustices. Of course, civil servants can implement such policies with zest.
JohnRohr adoptedanother approach forderivingthe foundational ethics whichpublicservantscan adopt in place of the authoritarian ethics of command. Rohr tries to justify the administrative state and the use of administrative discretion of public servants by invoking the American constitutional values and their interpretation by judiciary. In short, Rohr argues that public servants should base
their decisions on such constitutional principles. They should internalize (or adopt as moral code) the principles of the constitution which is the founding law of any State. Rohr identified freedom, equality and property as the three main values embodied in the American constitution. He calls them regime values or regime norms.
Rohr makes four points in this context. (i) Public officials take an oath of office to defend the constitution and are bound by it. (ii) Constitution can be regarded as the founding principle of any State. (iii) Constitution is far more important than any current, transient government set up. (iv) Administrators have to remain faithful to the constitution and not to any incumbent government.
Rohr’s ideas are supported on the ground that Constitution is the ultimate reference point for settling differences about government policies. Usually, a general consensus exists around the constitution. Constitution stands as a kind of universal moral order. It follows that public servants should seek moral guidance from constitution than from political masters. Or where the orders of the ruling dispensation vary from constitution, public servants have to go by the constitution.