Absence of ethics in the public service

Meanwhile, the very term "public service" is losing credibility. The notion of "public service" is indisputably value laden, just as public administration is fundamentally an ethical enterprise. The public interest and the common good are jeopardised when public officials fail to understand the ethical implications of their actions, even though they are technically competent or strategically astute.

To offset this possibility we must revise our conception of public office which, in my view, is best understood not as a career or even a profession, but as a vocation. Perhaps this suggestion jars in a cynical public or among bureaucrats hardened by the hothouse of government in daily practice.

"Vocation" literally means "calling" and is often linked to religious traditions, although it is comfortably applied to other caring professions, such as nursing. It involves adopting an appropriate discipline which links one's work with a mission. Public office, in its various guises, is surely a noble pursuit with a clear mission to pursue the well-being of all citizens.

Idealistic though it may sound, when public office is understood vocationally, the groundwork is laid for integrity in government, for that perspective is likely to fortify a bureaucrat's capacity to be an official conscience, one who relates frankly and fearlessly to superiors. Moreover, public administrators with a sense of vocation ask constantly and collegially whether their actions are consistent with the core purposes of their role.

As one of the great bureaucrats of the 20th century, former secretary-general of the United Nations Dag Hammarsjold, once said: "Only they deserve power who justify its use daily."