[Paper-IV] Ethics in Politics Book
Ranjith
Paper-IV: Ethics in Politics http://www.globethics.net/documents/4289936/13403252/FocusSeries_05_EthicsinPolitics_Benoit_text.pdf/bf28841e-216a-41ff-bca6-4ef9d4022d86 (Good book to read)
Competition among cardinal values. Tradeoffs. Dilemmas: (An argument in the book)
Politicians and citizens every day face situations where values conflict with one other, each claiming priority. Austerity versus growth, reduction of emissions versus transport or heating, and so on.
On the environment, we need a permanent trade-off between sustainability and solidarity, responsibility, equity, security and identity. Addressing disasters caused by climatic changes cannot avoid setting priorities i) between prevention (most effective), mitigation (most urgently needed) and adaptation (most helpful) and ii) between affected flooded or arid regions. The dilemmas faced are serious. Behavioural changes in living standards need to be balanced by visible progress at global levels.
What should come first? Who dies first? Who do we let die first?
We need just imagine a competition between three low-lying countries – Fiji, Bangladesh and the Netherlands – to realise how sharp this question is! Should selected criteria take into account the will and the capacity of peoples to repel threats or recover from damage, as well as their chances of success and the costs?
Possible solutions are emerging through innovative forms of institutionalised solidarity: international funds for risks, private insurance schemes, bilateral help, may reduce the dilemmas but cannot eliminate
them.
In trade, the Doha Development Round negotiations are stalled. Countries are torn between equity (free access for agricultural products, no hidden subsidies and no free copies) and responsibility. Security, justice and sustainability will not be reached without settling the first tradeoff; on the other hand, economic wars once regulated could remain peaceful.
Domestic conflicts, with some international implications – such as in Kashmir, the Basque country, the Great Lakes, Ireland, Sri Lanka – switch between security, identity and diversity, and freedom and responsibility, to the point where equity is at stake. The more security is prioritised, the more equity and solidarity suffer. Then it becomes a daunting task to re-establish trust. Suspicion becomes pervasive, spoiling each initiative of dialogue. Accommodating minorities and resolving ethnic tensions requires equity and security but also unity and diversity to be secured. Some local competences, behaviours and values cannot be bypassed, others that can be accommodated.
Acquiring land in other countries – a growing phenomenon – is away for a country to secure future access to food or energy resources, taking sustainability seriously. It conflicts with sovereignty and may undermine equity with local inhabitants, mostly peasants. Processed without consultation and out of any agreed framework, –for instance, long lease instead of acquisition, jobs and benefits for the local population –
such arrangements have proved politically risky. Madagascar provides a clear illustration.
Moral dilemmas are the daily bread of politics. Efficiency versus freedom. Solidarity versus responsibility. There is no point in denying this. The critical question is how to proceed. Some “ethical methodology” on how to handle such dilemmas needs to be explored.
Arguments about social security systems point to a clash between equity and solidarity: younger generations may well have to pay twice, for their parents as well as for themselves later on. Health insurance issues pivot between responsibility, equity and solidarity. Effectiveness and financial sustainability lie on the horizon. Dilemmas between action and inaction. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan analysed the genocides in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia – admittedly different in scale - and showed how terrible the consequences of inaction can be in the face of mass murder. The dilemma lies between quick and efficient action and the need for international consensus and clear legal authority.
Is it legitimate for a regional organisation to use force without a UN mandate? Is it permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights continue unchecked? The responsibility to protect is a recently stated principle that needs greater and more committed backing.
Political decisions are quite often caught between efficiency (speedy processes under strong leadership) and legitimacy (a lengthy process of consultation and negotiation). Decision-makers prepare themselves to be
blamed in case of failure. People would much prefer to eat their cake and have it. Dilemmas are not liked! They remind us of limitation.
Some politicians would prefer to outsource responsibility to the private sector. Some citizens would prefer not having to choose. Responsibility cannot be abandoned. It should be taken up, and then others may
be called to join in. Passing the buck is no long-term solution. Ethics is at the level of soft power (influence, incentive), and not of hard power (military force). Working with the ethical hexagon does not
suppress dilemmas but helps us to work them out in a responsible and transparent manner.