Can a politician ever be considered ethical or moral?

Can a politician ever be considered ethical or moral?  John raises this point as a comment to my previous post about Barack Obama – implied is that power corrupts and that by definition the nature of politics makes principle based leadership impossible.  Removing any possible cynicism from the discussion what makes a leader ethical?  Fred Kiel and Doug Lennick provide an interesting perspective to this question in their book “Moral Intelligence” which I have quoted elsewhere on this blog.  I think their perspective can be helpful in the political world as well. 

Cognitive intelligence (the ability to learn) and technical competence (the ability to do the job) are two threshold competencies that are seen as the very minimum competencies required to “play the game”.  What differentiates individuals though are two differentiating competencies called emotional intelligence and moral intelligence.  Most people are familiar with emotional intelligence but the idea of moral intelligence is just beginning to make its presense felt in discussions such as this. 

Barack Obama has both cognitive intelligence and technical ability – if he didn’t he would not have had the potential that voters and financial backers recognised before he became a US Senator.  Now that he is a Senator, however, what differentiates him to the point that people are prepared to vote for him as a US Presidential candidate?  I think it is his emotional intelligence and moral intelligence.  Now neither competency requires that he be perfect.  What they require is that he is able to establish meaningful relationships with those with whom he interacts and that he uses his abilities to act upon his moral intelligence – which is more than just knowing right vs wrong but where honesty, integrity, compassion and forgiveness play a role in all facets of your life, be they personal or professional.   Will he have to make compromises in the inetrest of the greater good?  Yes.  Will those compromises render him unethical or immoral?  Assuming there is a rationality to those compromises, I don’t think so. 

Think about this for a moment:  The word ethics comes from the greek ethos or values and to be ethical means that you act upon your values.  Morality is something else.  It’s a by-product of ethos and comes from the latin mores.  Mores means character.  I think Barack Obama is both ethical and moral and yet he will be required to compromise on both in the interests of collaborating with all stakeholders – even those with significantly different views to his.   Do you agree with my thinking or have I got it completely wrong?  Ethical leadership is inspiring.  Be inspired.

Barack Obama

What an impressive speech Barack Obama gave last night standing as he did beneath the Victory Memorial in Berlin.  I mean here is a US Presidential candidate of one of the most disliked countries in the world and yet tens of thousands of Berliners turned out to listen to what he had to say.  His first 20 words or so were:  I stand before you tonight as a citizen:  A proud citizen of the USA and a fellow citizen of the world.  In 15 seconds he had established his empathy and statesmanship and then proceeded to articulate why his youth, his inexperience, his failure to serve in the US armed service and the fact he is an African American are irrelevant in a world searching for leadership and direction.  An ethical life is inspiring. May every American voter be sufficiently inspired to vote for him and may the rest of us remember an event that helped put America back on the path to ethical leadership.

An hour with Gareth Cliff – 5FM

I enjoyed my hour with Gareth Cliff of 5FM fame this morning – just pleased I wasn’t auditioning for Idols.  He’s a smart articulate guy who has an opinion and isn’t shy about sharing it.  I mean, is it possible to be ethical and successful at the same time?  Everyone knows someone who is unethical and has been successful and surely being unethical is easier than being ethical anyway?   Character is the only thing you really ever own – everyone else owns your reputation and how you conduct yourself is how you will be viewed by the world in which you live.  Maybe being unethical is easier but you still have to live with yourself and the consequences of your actions somewhere down the line.  Word gets around and at some point people will stop wanting to associate themselves with you and the way you live.  Corporations like Levi’s and Nike care sincerely about their reputation and spend a great deal of money and energy in building it into something to be proud of.  Why should you or I be any different?  An ethical life is inspiring – do the right thing not what comes easiest.  Be inspired.

Whatcha doing at 08h00 this coming Friday (25 July 2008)?

Imagine switching on 5FM this coming Friday morning (08h00-09h00) and listening to Gareth Cliff talking about ethics and what it means to live an ethical life?  Crazy I know but that’s what Gareth and I, as his guest, will be talking about for one hour (08h00-09h00) this coming Friday 25 July 2008.  Talk about walking into a lion’s den ……  An ethical life is inspiring – be inspired.

Business ethics – the good news

It seems to me that the subject of business ethics can be particularly negative – I suppose people find it easier to complain and we all suffer from what David Armour calls the illusion of objectivity.  This illusion means we are all able to see prejudice and bias in others without recognising that same condition in ourselves.  The main reason for this particular human characteristic is that it is possible for us to have an internal value system that is different to the way we act.  Think of road rage or racism in the workplace.  In my experience people who find themselves guilty of such behaviour always seem shocked that they acted in a way they either weren’t brought up to believe in; or specifically teach their children against as a parent.  If you have taken some time to read this blog in the past you will have noticed there is a balance between good news stories that show ethical business practice is possible and is a requirement for sustainable competitive advantage; and those companies caught in the full glare of media attention over unethical behaviour.  Ethical business practice is inspirational.  Be inspired.

Should public advertising be used as a political weapon?

What are the ethical ramifications of using public money as a political weapon against a publisher you don’t like?  Business ethics direct quotes the following article as a test case: 

Judgment awaited on withdrawal of newspaper advertising
A Grahamstown court will soon decide if a body of government may legitimately withdraw advertising from a newspaper simply because the authorities do not like the coverage. This is the nub of a case filed by Grocott’s Mail against the Grahamstown City Council, which instituted a boycott of the twice-weekly publication a year ago. ‘The case has far-reaching repercussions, because a victory for the paper will send out a wider signal that public advertising is not available for use as a political weapon,’ writes Professor Guy Berger, chair of the board of Grocott’s Mail, in an article on the Mail & Guardian Online site. He says the issue impacts on public resources being used to skew media houses towards avoiding critical coverage – or, conversely, to sustain and reward those companies that
spec ialise in safe or sweetheart journalism.
Full Mail & Guardian Online article

Certainly BHP Billiton thought nothing of retaliating against Standard Bank for suggesting its Richards Bay aluminium smelter could be shut down during the energy crisis of January/February 2008; and motoring manufacturers think nothing of witholding advertising spend from a motoring publication that prints something unflattering about one of their vehicles.  But that’s all private money and I suppose the companies involved are entitled to vote with their money if that’s what they want to do – although I suspect those companies mentioned would be the first to demand a free press as long as it doesn’t say something negative about them.  But within the realm of public money – well now that’s another thing entirely particularly when the objectionable editorial relates to service delivery or the misbehaviour of public servants.  The Weekly Mail and Gaurdian does a fantastic job though of investigative reporting and listening to its Editor Ferial Hafferjee I can see why.  Guy Berger is another person who understands the need for principle based leadership which is why his clearly articulated position is deserving of recognition.  Be inspired.