In recent years, matters have come to a head in Norway’s organization-representative system of governance.
Members of political organizations elected via ballots have been shown to exploit welfare schemes in the most egregious ways.
As part of this complex, the administrative leadership of the Norwegian Parliament has also taken the view that corruption should be overlooked.
Read more: The Norwegian fund-backed political dominance model — the fund state
The rules have allegedly been too difficult for the country’s leading trustees and their administrators to understand—even though we are talking about people with many years of membership in organizations where missteps are otherwise quickly condemned. Our foremost trustees are skilled clerks with an unparalleled ability to find faults in systems and in others—well exposed in media and debates—while others attempt to understand and find solutions.
The gap between citizens and their trustees has grown so wide that citizens must bear the consequences, while trustees violate the media crisis rule that one should not blame others. Several who are caught and perhaps lose positions of trust tearfully claim it is someone else’s fault.
They then go on to aspire to new positions of trust—within political organizations, in the legislature, and as political leaders of the administration. There are also examples of those who step down as trustees or decline re-election being hired into administrative roles within the public administration.
Trustees who are caught in a breach of trust must step aside—for a long time. Citizens must be able to trust their elected representatives.
When elected representatives can sit out a summer and half a winter only to be recognized again by their party colleagues, this does not merely signal that fraud and cheating are accepted at the very top of the social hierarchy. It naturally also signals that such behavior is acceptable for the people for whom these trustees serve as role models.
The signals from political organizations extend to other organizations and businesses as well: rules can be interpreted to the organization’s advantage and need not be followed as long as no one discovers it.
In this way, both trustees and their organizations contribute to dragging down an orderly society with rules that are meant to be followed. The erosion of trust and repeated rule-breaking push society into a vicious spiral of ever more rules to comply with. Ordinary people and small businesses must be just as compliant as large ones, leading to high costs for accounting, finance, and legal consultants.
Political organizations and the administration must be mindful of their responsibility. Corrupt politicians must lose their positions when the seriousness warrants it and must not then be given jobs in the political industry’s public administration, where trust and political independence are also fundamental prerequisites.
For how long must they atone before potentially returning? Trust and reputation are not matters of law alone. They must demonstrate that they are worthy of trust and remain away from the arena long enough to make a difference. A police investigation initiated by the police themselves, a criminal complaint, or a fine should qualify for ten years. A criminal case, up to twenty years. But any return must be preceded by open acknowledgment of wrongdoing and genuine remorse.
While poor morals are not necessarily criminal for citizens, they have no place among trustees.
Trustees who, for example, exploit their position of power to coerce others into sexual acts are likewise unworthy of trust.
Nor should one embrace political organizations that turn a blind eye to such—and other—immorality and that quickly want the trustee back because the organization needs their skills. Such organizations are unworthy of anyone’s trust.
If political organizations are so impoverished of capable people that they must promote the candidacy of corrupt trustees, they should take a hard look at reality.
After all, trust is a central pillar of democracy. A system that is not worth trusting is, at best, a democracy gone awry.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments