Political Integrity: an Oxymoron?

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" ( Abraham Lincoln)

"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." (Thomas Jefferson)

Any discussion of political integrity should consider whether Jefferson 's premise is true- is it possible to be honest in politics? There are many who believe that it is not possible to succeed without sacrificing personal integrity. A politician may promise specific things to his electorate, and weeks later renege on his promises, citing all kinds of specious excuses for his erratic behaviour. Worse still, such behaviour is expected and considered to be a reflection of a politician's deftness, his ability to weasel himself out of obligations which might compromise his power in the future. Politicians on the Right or Left will lean towards the centre of the electorate in order to garner more votes, and, in many cases, they will betray their promises to a certain electorate if they see that a larger constituency will support a different agenda.

An elected politician must see his prime duty in representing all views of his constituency, not just those of his voters. A politician who pursues narrow sectarian interests alone violates a fundamental tenet of democracy, which designates the power to the majority on condition that the objective needs of each minority are respected and held inviolable. Does this need entitle the politician to abrogate electoral promises to his voters? Is he free from the obligation to stand by his word? Is he a true leader if he simply polls public opinion and follows it, rather than shaping that opinion by standing on less popular principles? Would he be right to tell his electorate that, having promised to represent their interests, he must now balance their interests together with opposing ones?

Moreover, a politician in power is often stymied by practical considerations which test his integrity. For example, he may have promised not to increase budget deficits, yet he also has to pass the budget which requires pacifying narrow interest groups by promising them increased funding. He may be forced by external events or by political defections to change his agenda. He may even retract unpopular positions simply to stay in power leaving whatever argument he chooses to prevaricate.

The ethical turmoil faced by an honest politician could be mitigated if we freed the politician from the regular rules of truth and falsehood. Albert Carr, a professor of business at Harvard University , has argued that we can view bluffing in business, as well as in politics, as a kind of game strategy. He quotes a prominent British statesman who argued that "falsehood ceases to be falsehood when it is understood on all sides that the truth is not expected to be spoken." This could be a true, although depressing, reflection on the political game where power, prestige and panache count for more than principles and loyalty to manifestos. There may be a different set of morals for politicians, but since they ostensibly represent the people as their chosen leaders, their standards should be more exemplary and not more fickle.

One of the ways voters have shown their disenchantment with the low level of political ethics is by consistently participating less and less in elections. A recent report (National election studies, University of Michigan ) shows plummeting trust in government -from a high of 60% in the 1960s to around 30% in 2004. Reuters news service (2004) quotes a World Economic Forum report showing that 46% of West Europeans and 50% of North Americans view their political leaders as dishonest. These figures are a serious indictment against the present political establishment.

How does Judaism reconcile the conflict between political integrity and the need for expediency? Since Jewish tradition favours a more absolutist system where a leader does not have to face elections every few years, he should not have dilemmas of personal integrity. Yet Saul, the first king of Israel , was still torn between his desire to accede to the people's request to spare Amalek's cattle and his promise to the prophet Samuel to wipe out the tribe of Amalek and all their possessions. Saul saw that the people could not countenance the wholesale slaughter of cattle, and he persuaded himself that the people's will was indeed G-d's interest. When he approached Samuel he declared: "I have performed the command of G-d". Samuel was not amused and said, "What is the bleating of sheep and the lowing of oxen which I hear". Saul responded by blaming the people, as if they had spared the cattle of their own accord. Saul did not realize that as king he held moral responsibility for his nation's actions, which stemmed from his reluctance to reprove them for their illicit request. Saul eventually realized his mistake, but it was too late; he had shown the cardinal weakness for a Jewish king, by letting himself be led by the people's will rather than directing their will in the appropriate way.

When Saul and his three older sons die a martyr's death on the battlefield, he leaves a political vacuum. Some of the tribes sympathize with David, the war hero who was relentlessly pursued by Saul who was jealous of his popularity, while others wish to continue Saul's hegemony through his surviving children. Abner, son of Ner, Saul's bodyguard, proclaims Saul's son Ishboshet to be king. The tribe of Judah retains loyalty to their kinsman David. As internecine tensions are mounting, which could lead to civil war, Abner realizes that David's kingship could unite the people and sends a message of support for his monarchy. David, sensing a trap, demands that Abner bring with him Saul's daughter, who was originally betrothed to David. In this political alliance David hopes to gain the support of Saul's diehard adherents, who want to see a continuation of Saul's dynasty on the throne. Abner indeed gathers all the tribes (in Chronicles 1:12 there is a long list of all the armed contingents who came to Hebron to crown David as king).

Despite Saul's bitter feud with him, David wants to gain legitimacy from the entire nation. When Abner is murdered the same day, in a blood feud, by David's general Joab, David takes pains to mourn him publicly. The prophet states: "And all the people saw and approved, whatever the king did was good in their eyes. For all the people and all Israel understood that day that the slaying of Abner did not come from the king."(Samuel 2:3) When Saul's generals betray his surviving son Ishboshet and murder him in cold blood, David publicly executes them to disassociate himself with their deeds.

David realizes a fundamental lesson in politics: he must gain acceptance of the whole electorate in order to maintain his monarchy, even if this requires appeasing enemies instead of neutralizing them. David seeks unity above all, and therefore when his son Absalom deceives him and appoints himself as king, David prefers to flee rather than pursue a civil war which will tear apart the nation. For David, personal considerations are superfluous when his subjects' fate is at stake. However, he still wants to retain his throne, and connives to send a fifth columnist to his son's camp in order to advise him against combating his father, in the hope that he can thus avoid conflict.

Nevertheless, David does not neglect his obligation to G-d, and as his psalms so eloquently illustrate, he is often torn by his commitment to personal integrity and his political needs. When faced with ruthless adversaries he turns to G-d and pleads:
Judge me, O G-d, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation; deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man...send out thy light and truth :let them lead me"(psalm 43)

In another place David legitimizes treacherous conduct towards others who act that way:
"with the pure thou will show thyself pure; with the perverse thou will be subtle "(psalm 18)

From Saul's unsuccessful leadership and David's turbulent monarchy, we can conclude that it is no mean feat to maintain one's personal integrity in the cauldron of political power struggles. Politicians must take pains to show their impartiality when in power, and they must endeavor to unite public opinion rather than be swayed towards their own or opposing voters for political considerations. They must be scrupulously honest, yet adept in the devious ways of their colleagues and capable of dealing with them accordingly. When faced with conflicts between their popularity and their principles, they must be ready to take the unpopular stance and sacrifice personal interests. For an honest politician there is no easy road, but as Jefferson said, honesty is the "whole art of government."