Article: Why there is still so little accountability in Ireland

djpbarry

Interesting article in today’s Irish Times by Dan O’Brien. It offers some much-needed perspective on the ‘corrupt’ nature of Ireland’s politicians:

Charles Haughey at his rapaciousness worst never came near matching Silvio Berlusconi’s abuse of power and unrelenting undermining of Italy’s democratic infrastructure. Civil servants do not routinely siphon tens of millions of euro from public budgets, as happens in Greece.

However, it does draw attention to the lack of accountability that (in my opinion) is ubiquitous in Irish society:

In a new book, The Origins of Political Order , American academic and thinker Francis Fukuyama notes that Ireland remained a clan-based society until much more recently than most of western Europe. Such societies prize tribal loyalty above impersonal forms of allegiance to concepts and values, such as political ideology and notions of effective government.

This might explain why voters have been so loyal to the ideologically indistinct Civil War parties. The weak link between paying taxes and demanding accountability may be another example. In most countries taxpayers’ movements make it their business to highlight government waste. No such organisation has existed here. During the boom, when so much money was being so obviously wasted, this writer had a pet question for politicians: do voters raise the matter of the squandering of their taxes on the doorstep?

They answer was always no.

For me, the above is a pressing issue in Irish politics; that is, the disconnect in the minds of the electorate between taxes paid and public spending. I feel that the author skips over this particular issue somewhat, in favour of his own belief that separation of executive and legislative branches of government will result in greater accountability. Without a shift in public perception, I'm not convinced that such separation will make that much practical difference.

Liam Byrne

The author has a lot of faith in the politicians answering 'no' to the wastage question.

Personally I'd suggest that they were lying, as normal, just in case by acknowledging it might mean they'd have to do something about it.

We also didn't quite know how much they were wasting, and it was only when stuff like the egotistic Bertie Bowl was pitched that it started to come to light.

P. Breathnach

djpbarry wrote: »

...
For me, the above is a pressing issue in Irish politics; that is, the disconnect in the minds of the electorate between taxes paid and public spending. I feel that the author skips over this particular issue somewhat, in favour of his own belief that separation of executive and legislative branches of government will result in greater accountability. Without a shift in public perception, I'm not convinced that such separation will make that much practical difference.

I think O'Brien is right about the failure to have achieved proper segregation between the legislature and the executive. I hadn't given much thought to the question of its being rooted in a weakness in the constitution, but that may be true. I had thought that our political parties had effectively co-operated to limit the Dáil's role in scrutinising the executive to the point where it is almost meaningless (and thereby, as an indirect consequence, creating a situation where TDs have found other things to do, mainly constituency-minding).

I agree that there is a culture of non-accountability, and I think it is very fair of O'Brien to point out that it has not been exploited as ruthlessly as has happened in other jurisdictions. And much of the corruption in Irish public life has a special characteristic: it is geared towards getting politicians re-elected rather than making them wealthy. When, years ago, it was possible for a TD to arrange that somebody's daughter get that job in the county council offices, the payoff was not in the form of cash brown envelopes but in the form of ballot papers in white envelopes. As a people, we bought into that (cue chorus of "I didn't", but you weren't shouting that when it mattered).

I'm not taken with the tribalism idea. It's colour writing.

Scofflaw

I'd go with the "clannish" aspect to some extent, as I suspect would anybody who comes to Irish politics from the outside, but I suspect the writer has transposed a more Scottish view (and a Romantic Revivalist view of Scotland at that).

I'd say myself that what we have is essentially a factional oligarchy, with local power based on personal clientilism and parochial loyalty - fairly typical of a dispersed agricultural population - and I'd agree that it's a major problem in accountability. We don't have a business relationship with our representatives - they are, instead, our local fixers within the factions, or with respect to the factions, and represent us in competition with the other localities for central resources.

However, there are ideological divides in Irish society, they're just not founded on the standard question of division of property and labour, but on the national question and attitudes to social issues rather than economic ones.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

@P.Breatnach

And much of the corruption in Irish public life has a special characteristic: it is geared towards getting politicians re-elected rather than making them wealthy. When, years ago, it was possible for a TD to arrange that somebody's daughter get that job in the county council offices, the payoff was not in the form of cash brown envelopes but in the form of ballot papers in white envelopes.

Whilst I dont fully agree with your characterisation of Irish political corruption as not being as personally greedy as Italian/Greek corruption, that would be a minor point. The corruption exists, and Irish politicians and civil servants make bad decisions for reasons that are little or nothing to do with fufilling their duty to represent the Irish peoples interests.

In your example there, the people of the county have been saddled with some buck toothed incompetent who cant get a job without someone pulling strings for her. This has knock on effects for delivery of services to the county and its people. And the political and civil service have co-operated to achieve this.

What the payoff is for the involved parties is only of academic interest.


As for the rest of Dan O'Briens article, its only telling us what we already know - we have an appallingly poor system of governance, with no transparency in policy making and an culture of secrecy and unaccountability within both the Dail and civil service. We then very predictably wind up with awful policies and decisions being made on a consistent basis.

The only question is when we're going get serious about root and branch reform.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

@P.Breatnach

Whilst I dont fully agree with your characterisation of Irish political corruption as not being as personally greedy as Italian/Greek corruption, that would be a minor point. The corruption exists, and Irish politicians and civil servants make bad decisions for reasons that are little or nothing to do with fufilling their duty to represent the Irish peoples interests.

In your example there, the people of the county have been saddled with some buck toothed incompetent who cant get a job without someone pulling strings for her. This has knock on effects for delivery of services to the county and its people. And the political and civil service have co-operated to achieve this.

What the payoff is for the involved parties is only of academic interest...

You write as if you disagree with me when I have described a practice as corrupt, and yet you maintain the practice I instanced is corrupt. And you entirely ignore the point implicit in my wording "when, years ago, it was possible..."; such interventions are, I understand, no longer possible because public service appointments are made by an independent commission.

You might note that I was writing about politicians acting corruptly, yet you have chosen to weave civil servants into the point I was making. You need to understand how things used to be done:
- A local council might have a vacancy for a library assistant;
- permission is given to advertise locally, and selection processes are run;
- a ranked list of applicants deemed suitable is sent to the department;
- word comes from the department that the applicant placed third on the list is to be appointed.
Why not the first? Because an intervention has been made by a TD on behalf of #3, the Minister has called for the file, and issued an instruction about who to appoint. In what way might that be construed as corrupt behaviour by civil servants or local authority servants? The Minister's instruction is lawful (even if the motive is corrupt) and has to be obeyed.

You might also note that the the Minister is constrained in one respect: an appointment could be made only from the list of those deemed suitable.

The dental configuration of any public servant, competent or not, is irrelevant.

The form of payoff is not merely of academic interest. I believe that the Irish people take a nuanced view of corruption. Almost everybody would agree that a politician arranging preferential treatment in exchange for money into his own pocket is wrong. I believe that not quite so many people see that arranging preferential treatment in exchange for a donation to the politician's party as being wrong. I am quite sure that very many people think it there is nothing at all wrong with a politician arranging preferential treatment in the expectation that the intervention be rewarded with votes in the next election.

Sand

@P. Breatnach

You write as if you disagree with me when I have described a practice as corrupt, and yet you maintain the practice I instanced is corrupt. And you entirely ignore the point implicit in my wording "when, years ago, it was possible..."; such interventions are, I understand, no longer possible because public service appointments are made by an independent commission.

No need to be so defensive - my point is that corruption is corruption: wider society suffers for it. Even if Irish corruption is more about extracting favours in return, rather than payments in cash (and whats been unearthed in the tribunals would undermine that view), its still irrelevant to the damaging effects of corruption itself. Whilst corruption varies in scale, it does so on the seriousness of the corrupt actions (rigging appointments to public jobs, rigging public contracts, planning decisions) not on the scale of benefits received in return.

Why not the first? Because an intervention has been made by a TD on behalf of #3, the Minister has called for the file, and issued an instruction about who to appoint. In what way might that be construed as corrupt behaviour by civil servants or local authority servants? The Minister's instruction is lawful (even if the motive is corrupt) and has to be obeyed.

This would be an example of the culture within the civil service that is a major part of the problem. I mean, you honestly cant see why that might be construed as corrupt behaviour?

We pay all the high wages for civil servants, and we cant seem to find any with the ability to make a decision.

I believe that the Irish people take a nuanced view of corruption. Almost everybody would agree that a politician arranging preferential treatment in exchange for money into his own pocket is wrong. I believe that not quite so many people see that arranging preferential treatment in exchange for a donation to the politician's party as being wrong. I am quite sure that very many people think it there is nothing at all wrong with a politician arranging preferential treatment in the expectation that the intervention be rewarded with votes in the next election.

Perhaps it might be down to the Irish people recognising the system, from politicians to civil servants despite your protests, is wholly and institutionally corrupt?

In any prisoners dilemma, if you cheat and the other guys plays honestly, you stand to win big. If you play honestly, and the other guy cheats youre done for. If you both cheat, youll both lose, but at least youll know the other guy got stuffed too.

Thus, Irish people decide to play by the rules of the game and choose representitives who are good at extracting corrupt favours to represent them in what is a very corrupt system. They dont like corruption, but thats how the game is played and they dont want to be left behind.

If we had a non-corrupt system with transparency and oversight on decision making, wed have a better result for all concerned. Hence the need for reform (especially cultural reform) of the civil service and our system of governance.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

... This would be an example of the culture within the civil service that is a major part of the problem. I mean, you honestly cant see why that might be construed as corrupt behaviour? ...

Don't misrepresent the import of what I say: I indicated clearly that I consider it corrupt. The important point that you choose to ignore is that what I described is corruption at the political level.

You seem to believe that it is open to a civil servant to disobey a lawful instruction given by a Minister because the civil servant believes that the Minister's reason for giving that instruction is based in corruption. All I can infer from that is that you want to transfer blame from the politician to the civil servant.

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The author has a lot of faith in the politicians answering 'no' to the wastage question.

True, it’s no more than an anecdote. But, if there’s one thing that can be said of Irish governments in recent years, it’s that they have been extremely populist. If people really were making noises about inefficiencies in the spending of taxes, it’s not unreasonable to assume that it would feature much more prominently in election manifestos and Dáil debates. As it is, much of the discourse revolves around protecting the vulnerable: politicians on the doorsteps are being told the people want more welfare, more public services and less taxes.

Sand wrote: »

As for the rest of Dan O'Briens article, its only telling us what we already know - we have an appallingly poor system of governance....

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. Quite the opposite in fact: despite the lack of accountability in Irish society, corruption tends to be on a fairly small scale (relative to the rest of Europe, never mind the rest of the world). Now that doesn’t make it alright, but I’m not really seeing how a rejigging of the Oireachtas is going to change anything – this Irish brand of corruption is ubiquitous throughout the country.

P. Breathnach

djpbarry wrote: »

... I’m not really seeing how a rejigging of the Oireachtas is going to change anything – this Irish brand of corruption is ubiquitous throughout the country.

It might be that if the Oireachtas had been set up in a slightly different way, the constituency farming practices would not have evolved in the way that they have. But such things take on a life of their own, and tweaking the arrangements now would not save things.

Let's be realistic: we are not going to change voters' expectations either.

So what is to be done?

[I ask on the basis that I believe that the ways things are done now is wrong, and should be changed. I feel the need to say that in order to avoid having views that I do not hold ascribed to me.]

Sand

@P.Breatnach

Don't misrepresent the import of what I say: I indicated clearly that I consider it corrupt. The important point that you choose to ignore is that what I described is corruption at the political level.

What you actually said was:

In what way might that be construed as corrupt behaviour by civil servants or local authority servants? The Minister's instruction is lawful (even if the motive is corrupt) and has to be obeyed.

So whilst in clearly indicating you consider it was corrupt (?), you also queried how it could be considered corrupt, noted it was a lawful order and that it would have to be obeyed. Clear as mud.

We are obviously approaching the core issue with different mindsets - youve never been clear on your background and get quite defensive whenever it is raised, but I work in a private corporation. I receive instructions from my bosses, and I am expected to carry them out. If I fail to do so, I will be demoted or fired. And given I work in a private corporation without a job for life, that isnt an idle threat.

However, at every opportunity, the culture of the institution at which I work is stessed. Culture trumps the chain of command, because the institution recognises the possibility of "rogue" managers abusing their powers for their own ends. For example, our money laundering policy is such that I am not held responsible only if I knowingly participate in money laundering. I am also held responsible if I have suspicions but fail to act on them, or there are "red flags" but I fail to investigate them. Thats just part of the culture - "I was suspicious but I was just following orders" might fly as an excuse in your hypothetical civil service but it would be your P45 in a private corporation. Id hope it wouldnt be unrealistic to expect at least a similar culture to exist within the civil service which is empowered precisely so it can act as a check on corrupt, political practices - not as willing henchmen.

Thats just one aspect - the other aspect is that the role would be in "de Ministers" power, his or hers to grant on a whim with no justification. This is an example of an institutional bias towards corruption. The fact that "de Minister" can or could issue instructions without having to justify or explain them is not some fact of life - its a bad practise that ought to be challenged and reformed. Corruption is not about issuing unlawful instructions, its about abusing lawful powers for their own interests, rather than the interests of the average citizen on whose behalf they were granted those lawful powers.

Bad practises do not justify themselves. If, as you hint, civil servants know their ministers are issuing lawful instructions for corrupt reasons, then they cannot co-operate with those lawful instructions whilst tut-tutting and feeling superior to the knuckle-dragging TDs parachuted into the Ministers chair for being gombeen men. They are just as responsible for the institutional corruption by facilitating and enabling it.

@djpbarry

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. Quite the opposite in fact: despite the lack of accountability in Irish society, corruption tends to be on a fairly small scale (relative to the rest of Europe, never mind the rest of the world). Now that doesn’t make it alright, but I’m not really seeing how a rejigging of the Oireachtas is going to change anything – this Irish brand of corruption is ubiquitous throughout the country.

I dont agree - the Irish arent any more or less corrupt than any other people, including both the Italians and the Germans. Nor are private workers somehow more hardworking or honest than public sector workers. We (as a state) simply have a terrible system of governance, transparency and accountability and the German/private corporations in general have a better one. When you set standards, people rise to meet them. If you set no standards, people slack off. Its no mystery why our budgetary policymaking process finished bottom of the class for the entire EU when evaluated by the EU, and its no mystery why our fiscal policy has been so appallingly bad over the past 10 years, over a time when there have been 4 different Ministers of Finance of wildly different character and 1 Dept of Finance, of consistent character.

It isnt a question of changing voters expecations as P.Breatnach asks (which seems to argue that solving corruption is a bottom up process, to which I can only wonder what place the constitution, the law or a court system has in this hypothetical country where solutions must be populist and must come from the followers, rather than leaders). People obey the law because they fear being caught, and they fear the repercussions. They break the law when they do not fear being caught or the repercussions. Irish voters respond to the signals the system send them.If we improve our system of governance, youd be surprised at how honest the Irish can be.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

...
So whilst in clearly indicating you consider it was corrupt (?), you also queried how it could be considered corrupt, noted it was a lawful order and that it would have to be obeyed. Clear as mud.

I thought of clarifying things for you, and decided that it would be a waste of time. It is clear that you intend to misrepresent my position even when my statements are on the same page as your twisting of them.

We are obviously approaching the core issue with different mindsets - youve never been clear on your background and get quite defensive whenever it is raised...

I have a right to privacy here, and if you don't know my background, that's just the way people deal with one another in this forum. Get over it, and don't try to undermine my arguments by attempting to suggest that there is something shameful or embarrassing about my background that I need to conceal. Perhaps you should read this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65437220&postcount=7

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

... Bad practises do not justify themselves. If, as you hint, civil servants know their ministers are issuing lawful instructions for corrupt reasons, then they cannot co-operate with those lawful instructions whilst tut-tutting and feeling superior to the knuckle-dragging TDs parachuted into the Ministers chair for being gombeen men. They are just as responsible for the institutional corruption by facilitating and enabling it....

Yet another distortion that enables you to make a case that could not be otherwise made. I said that a civil servant might believe that a Minister's decision was based in corruption: that's an important distinction from knowing that a Minister's decision is made for corrupt reasons. It seems that you want civil servants to disobey lawful instructions from Ministers on the basis that they believe something for which they have no evidence.

Why not accept that politicians can act in a corrupt manner, and that it does not always mean that civil servants are corrupt?

edanto

Because it's plain as day that if a civil servant believes that instructions from a Minister are corrupt, then they should have an alternatingve course of action to implementing those actions.

You are saying that the civil servant is blameless in that case, whereas Sand is saying that a better, more accountable, organisational culture would provide a route for that suspicion to be safely surfaced and actioned.

I wonder if that type of thing is a widespread or rare problem? What do you think are my chances of getting a straight answer from the civil service about the number of times, and in what circumstances, that whistleblower procedures have been used in the past five years?

P. Breathnach

edanto wrote: »

Because it's plain as day that if a civil servant believes that instructions from a Minister are corrupt, then they should have an alternatingve course of action to implementing those actions....

You mean like disobeying those instructions? On the basis of believing that the Minister has made a decision for the wrong reasons? Without actually knowing it and, more important, being able to prove it? And when the irate Minister orders the dismissal of a middle-ranking civil servant for explicitly refusing to obey a lawful instruction, should the Secretary-General keep that middle-ranking officer on the payroll?

We have had people post in this forum suggesting that the Civil Service has too much power. What I am dealing with here is the fact that when a Minister chooses to exercise authority, civil servants have very little power. They may have some influence ("Minister, if you do that, the newspapers might raise uncomfortable questions, and we won't be in a good position to defend your decision") but they do not have the power.

The point I was making is based on the fact that decision-making power in government vests in Ministers. In most matters, they receive advice from their civil servants. These are often matters in which it is proper that they should take a close interest. Very often, having carefully considered Department advice, they agree with the course of action recommended by the Department (this should not be a surprise, because Civil Servants tend to be mindful of the Minister's political agenda, and their advice is tailored to the Minister's preferences). I am sure that Ministers have, on some occasions, accepted Department advice without scrutinising it very closely -- perhaps because the question is both complex and uncontroversial, and the Minister does not become very exercised about it.

It does arise that Ministers disagree with Department advice. In general, the disagreements are not profound, and many would not be at all controversial. A civil servant might advise that they way to solve a particular problem is to take steps A, B, C, and D. The Minister might decide to take steps A, B, and D, and to defer step C to see if the problem can be solved without taking it. You can speculate on why a Minister might put off step C: could it be that an interest group with political access do not want it taken, or could it be that step C is expensive to implement and the Minister is looking for a cheap fix?

It does seem to me that very often Ministers' decisions are distorted by considerations of political advantage either for the Minister him- or herself, or for party colleagues. I think that most of us are familiar with the skewing of government expenditure to favour the Minister's constituency. That's corrupt. That's the sort of corruption I had in mind when I first posted in this thread, and it's a distraction, and distortion of discussion, to attempt to fix the blame on civil servants. In my experience, civil servants are more angered by such behaviour than are the rest of the population.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In my experience, civil servants are more angered by such behaviour than are the rest of the population.

In your experience?
What experience?

Expected reply: Dont dare question me about my background. You have no right to ask about my experience, experience I am happy to use to supposedly back up my points when it suits. I am outraged, the very nerve of it. In all my years as a civil servant I've never encountered such insubbordination!
I will ask you to kindly refrain from pointing out the hypocrisy of my using my experience to portray authority on the matter but then getting faux outraged when that authority is questioned.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

You have no right to ask about my experience

Well yes, you don't. If any poster wishes to offer their personal experience on this forum they are encouraged to do so, but the forum rules specifically ban other posters aggressively speculating on their circumstances and otherwise engaging in witch-hunts. Drop the nastiness now.

That applies to everyone, by the way.

/mod.

edanto

P, you're dead right that Ministerial corruption its a problem. I'm not saying that civil service behavior is a root cause of that, instead I'm saying that a new culture of openness and whistle blowing could be one solution to it.

Something like that would need the support of senior civil servants. In my experience (of making FOI requests), civil servants are religiously opposed to true openness. Instead, they obfuscate and give the minimum amount of information possible when questioned publicly on actions of their departments.

Would you agree?

P. Breathnach

edanto wrote: »

P, you're dead right that Ministerial corruption its a problem. I'm not saying that civil service behavior is a root cause of that, instead I'm saying that a new culture of openness and whistle blowing could be one solution to it.

Something like that would need the support of senior civil servants. In my experience (of making FOI requests), civil servants are religiously opposed to true openness. Instead, they obfuscate and give the minimum amount of information possible when questioned publicly on actions of their departments.

Would you agree?

I'm pleased that we are discussing the issue rather than me!

To give a full answer would involve a lot of thinking, and writing at great length -- and I'm a bit too lazy for that. I'll give some observations, and conversation might lead to ideas being teased out.

First, it is right and proper that a great deal of civil servants' work should remain confidential, for a variety of reasons, for examples (a) people have dealings with the state which should be kept private, such as their income tax or their healthcare; and (b) some information in the possession of the state is commercially sensitive, at least in the short or medium term.

In relation to policy development, discussions take place between Ministers and the staff of their Departments. The established tradition is that such discussions are privileged, and are not disclosed. There is a good defence for this: if the Minister rejects Department advice, and the Department then publishes that advice, then the Civil Service would be setting itself up as an opposition to the Government that it is supposed to be serving. Scrutinising and challenging Government is the function of a parliamentary opposition, not of unelected civil servants. [It looks to me as if the budget office that Fine Gael suggested prior to the election is an ingenious way to escape from this constraint.]

Those things said, I accept your core contention. There is a tradition in the public service of keeping just about everything confidential, far more than seems to me to be necessary. The default mode is to lock the files, while I think the attitude should be the converse, to favour openness unless there is a convincing reason to keep things confidential.

There is a lot more that might be said, but domestic duties call. I may return to the question later.

end a eknny

would the problem lie in the fact that most irish people know deep down that they would do the same thing themselves

P. Breathnach

end a eknny wrote: »

would the problem lie in the fact that most irish people know deep down that they would do the same thing themselves

Well, you put it a bit loosely, but I think you have a point. Irish people see political intervention in individual cases -- planning permission, getting medical cards, seeking disability payments, whatever -- as the normal way of doing business. Our politicians have created that expectation, and they certainly maintain it.