The Decline of Political Responsibility

In the post-1989 Czech political scene, one is hard-pressed to find an example of a politician who resigned as a result of taking personal political responsibility

Whether one likes it or not, the political process affects everybody in a given society. Indeed, politics can be regarded not only as a public activity, but also as a form of public discourse through which the public space is organised and with whose assistance the public decides (at least in theory) on a rational course for its future.

Because political decisions affect the lives of many people, and because politics is an expression of power, we naturally raise our expectations of politicians, and expect them to be responsible. We also ask them to forgo their privacy and ask that they subjugate themselves to special laws regarding corruption and conflicts of interest.

Moraliser or technocrat?

The “individual responsibility” of politicians is closely tied to the notion of “political responsibility.” However, it is necessary to distinguish between these two notions. Unlike the individual responsibility of a politician for a particular act, the concept of “political responsibility” has a far more general dimension.

The latter can have different interpretations, depending on the society in which it is applied, since the interpretation of “political responsibility” is closely tied to just how a given society views the concept of politics. Particularly important is whether the public believes that morality belongs in politics. Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon societies, who have grown up with the Protestant tradition and who, even today, have strong value systems, certainly have a closer relationship to this concept than do many other Western democracies.

Clearly, no political concept exists in an entirely pure form. Despite this, it’s possible – if one simplifies a little – to argue that in politics, which describes itself as having a moral outlook or purpose, we often hear questions related to “good” or “evil”. An example of this is US President George W. Bush’s characterisation of Osama Bin Laden as “evil,” and via more biblical language, of Al-Qaeda as “evildoers” On the other hand, we often hear that politics should not be about “mass moralising” or that moral principles stand in the way of a rational understanding of politics as a battle of ideas and interests. In a wider sense, this underscores the evolution of modern politics into pragmatic, rather than ideological concerns.

In societies where the technocratic concept of the politician prevails, the concept of “political responsibility” is more closely tied to the notion of individual accountability than anything else. In such a morally “neutral” stage, political responsibility is often reduced to a simple tactic: the politician must be careful to avoid certain mistakes and pitfalls, and to avoid damaging not only his or her career, but also their political party.

The Gross Scenario

An interesting example of this can be found in the actions of the Czech Republic’s former Prime Minister Stanislav Gross. Following the media’s bringing to light irregularities associated with the purchase of his apartment (how he could pay for it on his salary -Ed.), Gross found himself on the defensive. However, in this case, the concepts of personal responsibility and political responsibility were miles apart. As the premier got tangled up in a web of growingly unbelievable and absurd explanations, neither he nor his party mentioned the concept of political responsibility. Rather, they tried to refocus the scandal on the question of whether personal transgressions should indeed have any political consequences.

This discourse was accepted by a large part of the media and even sections of the opposition. The discussion continued to shift away from the failures of the premier, and shifted instead onto whether the level of the premier’s personal failings had yet reached the point where they could have any political consequences. We even heard arguments that whether or not Gross committed a moral (or criminal) blunder was unimportant, compared to the fact that he as premier didn’t have the mettle to weather out the storm. Thus, it was not the misdeed, but rather its discovery and the poor handling of that discovery that became Gross’s undoing and led to his eventual resignation. The political and criminal facts of the case continue to remain unexplained.

This way of thinking is supported by examples provided by other Czech politicians. The argument sounds roughly like this: “Why get so hung up on this one guy? We all know there are far more rotten apples around than just him.” But, the argument usually continues: “Well, since the Premier gave untrustworthy answers, he failed politically, and so he had to go.” We also often hear that Stanislav Gross failed to “communicate” adequately throughout the scandal, and that is why he had to ultimately and finally assume political responsibility.

Of note is that the Christian Democrats (who, as coalition members, went on the moral offensive against Gross –Ed.) allowed the apartment affair to fall into the background, when their head Mirolsav Kalousek suddenly had to face similar questions about his apartment. The Christian Democrats then shifted attention to  the close ties that Gross’s wife had with the businesswoman Libuše Bartoková, who had allegedly allowed one of her houses to become a brothel.

And so, politicians turned the whole thing into a game of political ping-pong, partly out of fear that focusing on the real issues would reveal their own shady dealings. In such a  climate, the moral argument as well as any notion of responsibility, was completely lost.

Indeed, not even the separate affair that sprung up around Bartoková could be separated from the wider context of Czech politics, which further blunted the moral knives of the Christian Democrats. Barková herself was able to successfully point out that the Prague Council itself rents out properties to companies that turn them into brothels. And the politicians failed to note that the whole Mafiosi system in which prostitution is undertaken in this country exists precisely because of their failures as politicians.

In the end, Gross resigned as premier without the public actually learning the truth about how Gross had paid for his flat, or what the truth was about his family’s connections to Bartoková.  Thus, personal responsibility was suddenly cloaked in the veil of political responsibility.  The only lesson for Czech politicians was this: if you lie, don’t get caught, and if you do, do a better job of appearing trustworthy.

Ultimate accountability

In societies with more evolved political climates than in the Czech Republic (or in ones where morality plays a political role), the concept of political responsibility plays an important role. In certain circumstances, it works in such a way as to personify certain political failures which have been committed by those lower down the echelons of government.  The society is then able to come to terms with such failings and cleanse itself.

In this example, the politician takes responsibility for those failures which have happened during his or her chain of command, despite the fact that he or she may not necessarily have been personally responsible for them. An interior minister can be forced to resign as a result of a bumbled police operation, even though he or she had little to do with the specific planning and implementation of such an operation.

This kind of political responsibility can be viewed as a kind of comforting fiction. Nonetheless, in terms of ultimate accountability, it can be viewed as entirely positive and important for society.

In the unripe world of Czech politics, this concept of responsibility has yet to exist at all. Politicians often use the defence that they have done nothing wrong and that only those under them have failed. This approach is a grotesque twist of the defences used by those who served in authoritarian regimes – they personally kept their hands clean, and if asked, stated that they were merely obeying orders.

In both examples, the problem is the same. Individual responsibility, reliant on individual conscience, is separated from political responsibility. A democratic politician who claims that he has no reason to resign when serious failures in his department are exposed, is only the mirror image of a bureaucrat who claims innocence for merely blindly following orders from above, even though his own conscience told him that something was not in order.

In the post -1989 Czech political sphere, we would be hard pressed to find an example of a politician who resigned because they assumed political responsibility. This is a continuation of the Communist-era mentality, in which no one was responsible for anything, because the theoretically utopian system stated that everyone was collectively responsible for everything.

Public versus private

Evaluating politicians according to their responsibility or lack thereof is compounded by the expectations we place on their shoulders. For example, we often hear that politicians, like celebrities have difficult private lives under the public gaze. But by accepting a public post, politicians become public figures and lose their right to privacy, by virtue of the fact that their decisions affect our lives, and because without the public gaze, their posts could so easily be misused for personal or other gains.

In theory, the politician’s private life thus becomes public property - the apparent sense of good conduct and responsibility in their private lives being used to gauge and measure their feasibility and viability as a public servants.

However, in modern democracies, even these gauges have become gradually weakened. This has occurred for a number of reasons. First, the modern media has become seduced by notions of mass culture, in which privacy is a tradable commodity (as evidenced by “reality television”). This relativisation of the private, often supported by voluntary exhibitionism, is continuously blurring the boundaries between the private and public domains.

In post-modern societies of mass culture and consumption, there is a continual trend towards the relativisation of values. It is becoming ever more difficult to place moral expectations on politicians, when society itself is going about frivolously breaking moral taboos.

This shift became highly visible with the playing out of the scandal of former US president Bill Clinton and his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The moral condemnation regarding his deeds collapsed, since the majority of Americans were not that bothered by them, or were at least prepared to forgive him. In the end, Clinton’s opponents attempted to unseat the President not because of adultery, but because of him lying about the affair under oath.  Of note is the fact that just a decade earlier, stories of infidelity ruined the 1988 campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Gary Hart.

Also of note is the shift in the perception of privacy. During the presidency of John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), there were whispers about his extra marital activities. But this was still the beginning of the mass media age. The private sphere was much larger, and remained far more respected and harder to break than today. Hart became a victim of the mass media at a time when the private sphere was diminishing. The unveiling of any transgressions was thus able to have a devastating effect on any public servant.

By the time of the Clinton affair, both the concept of privacy and many of the notions of moral criteria had become significantly diminished. The public, fuelled by the media, became spellbound with every detail of Clinton’s private life, yet remained unwilling to cast judgement on the president.

Recently in the Czech Republic, a series of revelations came to light, which also seemed to have very little impact.  It turns out the Czech president Václav Klaus has a twenty-year-old mistress.  Indeed, a very warm interview, which revealed details of the nature of the relationship, was published in the press. 

Thus, it appears that the shifting public perception of morality is shifting the perception of political morality. This trend has gone so far, that it appears that the only sphere where the public still place high expectations on their politicians is in the realm of their finances, and the misuse of their privileged positions.

A failure of society

The growing disgust felt by the public towards their politicians in Western societies is not so much a result of the moral failures of politicians as of individuals. It is part of a wider trend in which the lines between personal and private have become blurred. In a society in which anything goes and every failure can be excused away by experts as a societal issue, the reasons why politicians should be any better than the rest of society suddenly disappear.  Higher moral expectations can only be placed on politicians by a society that knows exactly what those expectations are.

Indeed, mistrust of politicians can be viewed as not stemming from their seemingly growing immorality and unaccountability but from the fact that society sees itself in these politicians – and does not like what it sees.

We still very much appear to want politicians to set the tone, to raise moral expectations, to lead by example – but arguably, politicians are unable to do this. More and more, this role is shifting into the hands of the mass media whose tone grows ever more dissonant, whilst its “moral outrage” is often for mere personal gain.

One of the clear effects of the fading away of individual responsibility is the gradual decline of political leadership. Political leaders (elites in the positive sense of the word) were once people with a vision, of which they were the personal guarantors. This brand of accountability could only come from a sense of individual moral integrity and the ability to take responsibility for one’s actions, often in the face of public opposition. In modern times, such a leader is gradually disappearing.

Post-modern society appears to be ruled my a morally neutral  vox-pop, which the media claims only to channel into the public limelight. In truth, the media to a certain extent determines what the public should think, by the weight it gives to certain stories. And because we now have a media born from the system of consumerism and mass consumption, in which everything including politicians, has become entertainment fodder, responsibility and morality have become even more blurred.