Читать книгу Faith, Leadership and Public Life - Preston Manning - Страница 14

1.5 TRAINING: ETHICS

Introduction

Prior to my entry into federal politics in Canada I spent 20 years as a management consultant, mainly focused on long-range strategic, communication, and community relations planning for clients in the energy industry. In that context I tried to keep up on the various techniques and strategies published every year in a variety of journals and books on the subject of effective management, especially the management of people. Some of these were quite helpful and would eventually be of use to me in managing the executive and organization of a political party, including a parliamentary caucus. But of all the management texts I have read and studied, perhaps the most insightful and helpful from my perspective has been a book by a 19th century Scottish clergyman and theologian, A. B. Bruce, entitled The Training of the Twelve.50

The language of his book will strike the modern reader as quaint and out of another era, which it is. And Bruce occasionally digressed into giving his side of various theological disputes that were apparently important at the time but no longer resonate with us. But the depth and breadth of Bruce’s descriptions and insights into exactly how Jesus of Nazareth, in three short years, took a motley crew of twelve young men and moulded them into the founding members and leaders of an organization, the Christian church, which has lasted over twenty centuries and greatly affected the lives of hundreds of millions of people, are profound and instructive.

The disciples were not the smartest, the wealthiest, or the best educated of the many people Jesus encountered. They were not the best connected or the most religious. Far from it. Most were from a rural region, Galilee, of which one of its own is recorded as wondering “Can anything good come from there?”51 Bruce described them as follows:

In a worldly point of view they were a very insignificant company indeed,—a band of poor illiterate Galilean provincials, utterly devoid of social consequence, not likely to be chosen by one having supreme regard to prudential considerations. Why did Jesus choose such men? Was He guided by feelings of antagonism to those possessing social advantages, or of partiality for men of His own class? No; His choice was made in true wisdom. If He chose Galileans mainly, it was not from provincial prejudice against those of the south; if, as some think, He chose two or even four of His own kindred, it was not from nepotism; if He chose rude, unlearned, humble men, it was not because He was animated by any petty jealousy of knowledge, culture, or good birth. If any rabbi, rich man, or ruler had been willing to yield himself unreservedly to the service of the kingdom, no objection would have been taken to him on account of his acquirements, possessions, or titles … The truth is, that Jesus was obliged to be content with fishermen, and publicans, and quondam zealots, for apostles. They were the best that could be had.52

Nevertheless, now looking back over twenty centuries, it is truly astounding to see what this humble band became under his tutelage and what was accomplished through them. What might those of us responsible for forming, motivating, and managing small groups of people today—especially for religious or political purposes or for operating at the interface of faith and public life—learn from Jesus’ methods and example in this regard?

Lessons in Leadership

As Bruce observed, the record of the work of Jesus contained in the Gospels has two distinct dimensions—a public dimension in which he spoke, taught, and acted in public and dealt with public audiences and a more private and intimate dimension in which Jesus devoted himself specifically to the training and cultivation of the disciples. Be reminded, Bruce said,

There were two religious movements going on in the days of the Lord Jesus. One consisted in rousing the mass out of the stupor of indifference; the other consisted in the careful, exact training of men already in earnest, in the principles and truths of the divine kingdom. Of the one movement the disciples … were the agents; of the other movement they were the subjects. And the latter movement, though less noticeable, and much more limited in extent, was by far more important than the former; for it was destined to bring forth fruit that would remain—to tell not merely on the present time, but on the whole history of the world.53

It is this second dimension of Jesus’ work that Bruce examined and explained in great detail. Three aspects of the training of the disciples that I find particularly relevant to those of us with interests in public service, whether we are believers or not, pertain to the inculcation of high ethical standards, the management of ambition, and the reform of existing practices and institutions. In this chapter let us begin with Jesus’ approach to the inculcation of ethics and its contemporary relevance.

The Inculcation of Ethics

The cultivation of high ethical standards among those who seek public service is absolutely essential today if public trust in public leaders is to be restored, especially trust in political leaders, parties, candidates, democratic processes (such as elections), and democratic institutions. This is particularly true for candidates for public office with a faith commitment, as they are often held to an even higher standard than others are and will be mercilessly castigated as hypocrites if and when they fall short.

In a national public-opinion survey conducted by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy (January 2015) we asked respondents to indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being totally unimportant and 10 being very important) the importance they attached to the following:

• Whether candidates for public office are “knowledgeable.”

• Whether candidates possess certain “skills,” such as the ability to communicate, make decisions, etc.

• Whether candidates possess certain “character traits,” such as honesty, compassion, transparency, and integrity.

Predictably, character trumped knowledge and skills by a large margin. In fact, many respondents implied that they didn’t care how knowledgeable or skilful a political candidate or leader was; if they couldn’t be trusted because of character deficiencies, they shouldn’t be supported for public office.54

This survey also indicated that the those surveyed held a very low opinion of the ethical standards of Canada’s current political class, with 90 percent seeing elected officials as being more concerned with advancing their own interests (e.g., making money) than serving their constituents, and 55 percent considering elected officials to be unprincipled in general.

Another survey conducted around the same time by Ryerson University indicated that the unethical behaviours of politicians that respondents found most objectionable were the breaking of election promises (75 percent), the use of tax dollars to buy votes (55 percent), and the adoption of policies favouring particular interest groups, lobbyists, or family members solely to advance those interests and win their support (55 percent).55

Reliance on Ethical Codes

So how do we go about raising the ethical tone and standards of a nation or a society? More particularly, how do we go about raising the ethical tone of those in public service?

From ancient times down to the present, the most frequently utilized approach is to develop and enforce a code of ethics, with positive incentives for adherence, penalties for violations, and a system for monitoring and enforcing compliance.

For the people of Israel, from the days of their liberation from Egypt right down to Jesus’ day, it was the code of ethics embodied in the law of Moses and all the processes and institutions developed for its communication, expansion, and enforcement that constituted the traditional approach to securing ethical behaviour. Not dissimilarly, in our day we have seen the same approach taken, as evidenced by the plethora of ethical codes and compliance regimes adopted by many companies, professional organizations, and governments. In the case of the latter, codes of conduct for civil servants and elected officials may be enshrined in legislation and reinforced by the appointment of compliance officers and ethics commissioners.56 This was the situation that prevailed when my colleagues and I were first elected to the Canadian Parliament in 1993.

Insufficiencies of the Code of Ethics Approach

Unfortunately, the sad reality is that this approach by itself has generally proved to be insufficient in achieving the goal of securing consistently ethical behaviour on the part of those committed or subjected to it. For example, this insufficiency was demonstrated by the four-hundred-year experience of ancient Israel with the law of Moses, as recorded in the Old Testament, and the conclusion of the latter prophets that unless the law could be written on the tablets of the heart—that is, internalized—reliance on a code of ethics alone was insufficient to guarantee ethical behaviour.

My own experience as a Canadian parliamentarian from 1993 to 2002 has led me to conclude that reliance on an external code of ethics is an insufficient approach today as well. When the Chrétien government was elected in 1993 it introduced a code of ethics for parliamentarians and civil servants, accompanied by the appointment of an ethics commissioner and a tightening of laws and regulations governing lobbying and conflicts of interests. The government insisted that all of this would lead to a higher degree of ethical behaviour on the part of the administration and parliamentarians. But the sad reality was that the parliaments of which I was a part exhibited the following:

• A chronic inability to recognize moral and ethical issues when they arose, especially with respect to old practices sanctioned by time, routine, and habit.

• A persistent defaulting to “moral relativism” as an excuse for inaction when confronted with moral and ethical issues.

• An overreliance on ethical pragmatism and utilitarianism rather than code-based or “deontological” ethics when an ethical decision could not be avoided.

Insufficiencies Illustrated from My

Parliamentary Experience

The word parliament is derived from the French parler, meaning to speak. Communication is the essence of political and parliamentary discourse, and the principal ethical test of a communication is “Is it true?” This test can be applied to a speech, a news release, a ministerial statement, a party platform, a policy declaration, and so on, but when we do so in today’s world, what do we find? That of all our public communications it is political discourse that is so riddled with near truths, half-truths, outright lies, and political spin that the public has justifiably ceased to believe much of what politicians say.

Did the proclamation of a code of ethics for the 35th parliament of Canada change any of this? Did it increase the sensitivity of members as to whether what they were saying in debate or in committee or from a political platform met even the most elementary test of truthfulness? Not at all. Politicians, in general, simply do not see a moral or ethical aspect to our long-established habits of communication in the public arena, just as some business people see no moral issues in their long-established business practices and some media people see no moral issue in how they filter and present information and some bureaucrats see no moral issues in how they treat or mistreat people. Codes of ethics, no matter how well worded or communicated, seem insufficient to increase awareness of ethical issues or standards in areas where indifference, callousness, or habitual practices have blinded the practitioners to them.

To illustrate, let me cite just one bizarre incident that demonstrated for me how ineffective, in the final analysis, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are in guaranteeing any degree of truthfulness in parliamentary debate. On this particular occasion a government member asserted that a certain opposition member was a “racist,” an assertion that I and others knew to be a lie.57 In the heated exchange that followed, the opposition member in question said so and labelled the first member a “liar.” The Speaker immediately ruled both members out of order and threatened them with expulsion from the chamber if they did not retract and apologize. In doing so, he was much more censorious of the second member than the first, giving the impression that the use of unparliamentary language—the word liar—was a much greater offence than the lie that provoked it. I later sought clarification from the Speaker, who ruefully confirmed that, as he interpreted the Standing Orders governing members’ conduct, the House is offended by the use of the word liar but not necessarily offended by the lie itself. Obviously there is a great need for upgrading the ethics of the House in regard to truth telling, but something much more than a code of ethics or amendments to the Standing Orders is required to achieve that objective.

At about the same time as this incident, several other issues involving serious violations of ethical standards were swirling about the head of the government. These included the alleged cover-up of the murder of a Somali civilian by Canadian Special Forces on a peacekeeping mission; the deaths of scores of Canadians from tainted blood and the allegations that an earlier Liberal administration had ignored early warnings of this danger because it did not want the matter to become an election issue; and the denial by the government that its leadership had ever promised to “kill, scrap, or abolish” Canada’s goods and services tax during the previous election campaign, when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary.58

During the daily Question Period I asked the prime minister, “Do any of these activities violate the prime minister’s ethical standards, or by his standards are all these activities ethically acceptable?” Later in the day at a meeting of a special joint committee of the House and Senate on a code of ethics for members of Parliament I asked the prime minister’s ethics counsellor the same question.

In both cases, each professed to see no ethical issues with respect to the activities in question, only “differences of opinion on matters of policy between the government and the opposition.” In essence, this was a fall back to moral relativism, which eviscerates many ethical discussions in the political arena and elsewhere by adhering to the notion that you are entitled to your ethical standards and I am entitled to mine, but neither of us is entitled to judge or challenge the standards of the other, because there are no absolute moral standards, only differences of opinion as to what constitutes ethical conduct.59

On one further occasion during my last year in Parliament, I again became acutely aware of the insufficiency of the instinctive approach of politicians to ethics while dealing with an important piece of legislation. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I was involved in reviewing a draft bill for the regulation of assisted human reproduction, related stem cell research, and human cloning. These activities are fraught with ethical considerations, and we sought the advice of several expert ethicists to assist us in dealing with them. It soon became apparent, however, that a majority of my colleagues on the committee favoured a utilitarian approach to the ethical issues in question—an approach that pragmatic politicians instinctively favour. Simply identify the costs and benefits of the activity in question, and if the benefits outweigh the costs, then the activity is ethically justifiable. If the ratio of benefits to costs is not favourable enough, keep expanding the definition and scope of benefits until you get the justification you want.

This approach does not even rely on a code of ethics and is in conflict with so-called deontological ethics, which insist that we have an inherent obligation or duty to act in accordance with certain specific rules of conduct derived from reason or accepted beliefs, regardless of whether to do so maximizes some defined good or minimizes some defined harm.60 This is why attempts to ensure that the bill included a clause recognizing an inherent obligation on the part of Canadians to respect human life—regardless of pragmatic arguments for taking, preserving, or manipulating it based on the costs and benefits of doing so—were completely disregarded.

A Different Road to Ethical Behaviour

So what were the distinguishing features of Jesus’ approach to ethics and which features characterized his training of the disciples in this regard? And how does his approach differ from the conventional approach to ethics today?

First of all, he presents and demonstrates love—self-sacrificial love—as the supreme ethic, which if practised will ensure that all the other ethical demands of the law (the code) will be met. “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”61

According to Bruce,

[Jesus] described the ethics of the kingdom, as a pure stream of life, having charity [i.e., love] for its fountainhead; a morality of the heart, not merely of outward conduct; a morality also broad and catholic, overleaping all arbitrary barriers erected by legal pedantry and natural selfishness.62

Of course, in the end he not only taught this ethic, he demonstrated it in an unforgettable way by his own self-sacrifice on the cross.

Note that this ethic is not a utilitarian ethic—it does not rest on a calculation of costs and benefits to either the individual or the society embracing it—but is presented as inherently worthy of adoption because of its source. As described later by the apostle Paul, love keeps no record of wrongs or of its own accomplishments (that is, it keeps no record of its costs or benefits). “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”63

Second, Jesus teaches his early followers that the inner transformation required to adopt and practise this ethic involves committing yourself to and following a being morally superior to yourself who already embodies and practises this supreme ethic. As a result, he draws the disciples to himself, saying, “Love each other as I have loved you,” and points them and other seekers to a loving God as the ultimate source of this morality.64 When one such seeker asks, “Good teacher … what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replies, “Why do you call me good? … No one is good—except God alone.”65 God himself is the being who is morally superior to us all. Draw near to him, and you will draw near to the ultimate source of morality.

Note that Jesus does not disparage those who honestly strive to adhere to a code of ethics, in particular the law of Moses. In fact, Jesus says,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore … whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”66

But he teaches that the code of ethics contained in the law of Moses is to be fulfilled not by adding regulation on regulation or constantly tightening its compliance and enforcement regime but by committing ourselves to a person who embodies and practises it fully, in this case Jesus himself. Therefore, the code of ethics becomes a means to an end—a guardian or schoolmaster, as the apostle Paul was later to write—to drive us toward a relationship with that morally superior being who embodies and fulfills it.67

Third, Jesus demonstrates to the disciples that in the hands and company of himself, the embodiment of self-sacrificial love, his followers will begin to see moral and ethical issues in situations that the mere adherents to the law are blind to. For example, in his Sermon on the Mount he actually tightens the ethical demands of the law rather than relaxing them, saying,

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment … You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”68

He rebukes the Pharisees in particular for professing to see a moral obligation to practise tithing even with respect to their use of spices but being blind to their moral obligations in weightier matters demanding justice, mercy, and faithfulness.69 At the same time, he cautions his followers against the opposite extreme—the danger to which moralists of every kind are particularly susceptible—of seeing moral and ethical issues in every particular situation involving others, even when such issues do not exist, while ignoring their own moral condition.70

Fourth, Jesus forms his followers into a “moral community,” one where the ethic of love is to be its distinguishing moral characteristic and whose members support one another and hold each other accountable for their behaviour. It is this moral community that is to sustain and extend the ethical teachings of Jesus, and his last recorded prayer is a prayer for its unity and endurance.71

It should be noted that the size of the original community of disciples was small; that the relationships among them grew more personal and intimate as they lived and worked together; and that the moral tone of their community was definitely set by the high ethical standards of their leader. Where these three characteristics do not exist—as in large, impersonal organizations with distant or ethically challenged leadership—the inculcation and maintenance of high ethical standards are compromised.

Implications for Us

I must first of all readily admit that I have personally wrestled long and hard—often with limited success—with precisely how to internalize high standards of ethical behaviour among members of business and political organizations of which I have been a part and that I still have much to learn myself in this area.

But it would seem to me that the ethics of the political organizations and communities of which I have been a part, including the Parliament of Canada, would be strengthened by acknowledging the following:

• Codes of ethics and associated compliance and enforcement regimes are insufficient in themselves to achieve a high standard of ethical behaviour.

• The ethics of an organization will never rise higher than those of its leadership, and high ethical standards should therefore be an essential prerequisite in choosing and cultivating political leadership.

• Putting the interests of others—our fellow countrymen, our constituents, our colleagues, our families—ahead of our own selfish interests should constitute our highest ethical commitment. (Is not this the essence of self-sacrificial love as Jesus taught it?)

• The ethical life is not static; we should be growing in ethical sensitivity—increasingly seeing ethical and moral dimensions in issues and situations where we might not have seen them before, while avoiding the extreme of seeing moral issues where in fact none exist.

• We are in need of the fellowship of others who share our moral commitments and will hold us accountable to keep those commitments. We therefore should seek to be part of a moral community and contribute to its sustenance and activity.

If you are ever responsible for establishing the moral tone and standards of a group—a church, company, charity, political organization, or government—surely these lessons drawn from the teachings and example of Jesus constitute an excellent starting point.

Make self-sacrificial love the supreme ethic to be pursued and practised, encouraging and rewarding those who put the interests of others ahead of their own while constraining those who consistently put their own self-interest ahead of everything else. Commit yourself to following and learning from someone who personally practises that ethic, and seek to become that person yourself, recognizing that the ethical standards of an organization will never rise higher than those of its leadership. And form or join a moral community or fellowship—preferably a small and intimate one—where that highest of ethical standards will be practised and where you will be supported and held accountable by others for doing so.

50 Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, or Passages Out of the Gospels Exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus Under Discipline for the Apostleship (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1871). Note that Bruce focused on the twelve male disciples; however Jesus also had many female disciples who were included in his inner circle and whom he trained.

51 John 1:46.

52 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 37, emphasis added. “They were the best that could be had” is Bruce’s summation of the twelve at the time of their recruitment. Jesus himself, however, viewed them from a different perspective, describing them to his Father toward the end of his ministry as “those whom you gave me” (John 17:6).

53 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 106.

54 “2015 Manning Barometer,” national public opinion survey carried out January 20 to 23, 2015.

55 “Public Perceptions of the Ethics of Political Leadership,” Jim Pattison Ethical Leadership Program at Ryerson University.

56 Federal Accountability Act: An Act Providing for Conflict of Interest Rules, Restrictions on Election Financing and Measures Respecting Administrative Transparency, Oversight and Accountability (S.C. 2006, c. 9).

57 See Preston Manning, Think Big: My Adventures in Life and Democracy (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2002), 117.

58 See Manning, Think Big, 118–120.

59 In this regard I am reminded of a study of political integrity by the historian D. C. Somervell that focused on the lives of two 19th century British statesmen. These were William Gladstone, the moralist, who if he didn’t see right and wrong in an issue was uninterested, and Benjamin Disraeli, the pragmatist, who rarely saw right or wrong in any issue, only differences of opinion. And what was Somervell’s conclusion? That while it is an error to discover moral issues when none are in fact at stake, it is a greater error to be blind to them when moral issues really arise (see D. C. Somervell, Gladstone and Disraeli [Garden City: Garden City Publishing Company, 1928], 66).

60 Deontological is derived from the Greek word for duty or “that which is binding.”

61 Matthew 22:37–40.

62 Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 43.

63 1 Corinthians 13:4–7.

64 John 15:12.

65 Mark 10:17–18.

66 Matthew 5:17–19.

67 See Galatians 3:24.

68 Matthew 5:21–22, 27–28.

69 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:23–24).

70 “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish’” (Luke 13:1–5).

71 See John 17.