Comparability of cases

Abuse of Faith in Governance: Mystery of the Unasked Question (Part #4)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

This is written in the aftermath of the financial crisis, with governments forced to respond to the economic consequences, notably in the form of bankruptcies, unforeseen falls in GDP, and extraordinary levels of unemployment -- all of which are expected to continue. In the case of the UK, however, the focus on these matters has been completely obscured by the crisis regarding abuse of the system of expenses by Members of Parliament.

What is most curious is that the language explaining the abuses within the banking system, which led to the financial crisis, has many similarities to the language used to explain the abuses by Members of Parliament. Both resulted in a massive loss of public confidence in institutional systems considered to epitomize trustworthiness.

• system: responsibility for these crises (in both cases) is mainly held to be that of a "system", whether in their respective regulatory failures, or the inadequacy of the rules
• natural disaster: the crisis, notably in the case of the financial crisis, is depersonalized by use of meteorological metaphors: "hurricane", "storm", etc so as to benefit from a framing as a "natural disaster", even implying an "Act of God" (for those of religious disposition), consequently beyond any human responsibility (an ironic strategy with regard to collapse of a financial bubble when a major policy issue is "global warming" and the storms it is likely to engender, as a consequence of human activity)
• culture: emphasis is placed (in both cases) on the emergence of a regrettable "culture", the "bonus culture" in one case, and a laissez-faire tendency to charge any conceivable expenses in the other -- the role of greed is emphasized in commentaries on both
• self-regulation: arguments had long been made in both cases in support of their self-regulatory capacity -- with the added implication of the inherent trustworthiness of those in the banking system or those in the Houses of Parliament, whose Members are entitled to be addressed as "Honourable Members" (a privilege now challenged)
• exemplars: in addition to the assumed trustworthiness of the institutional systems, those involved had long been upheld as exemplars of trustworthiness (recognized by awards, etc) and involved as such in leading roles in prestigious societies (business circles, churches, synagogues, freemasons, etc), possibly as women or "men of faith" -- worthy of every admiration. The case of Bernard Madoff has been salutary in this respect.

But although the language concerning the crises is very similar, and those using such language may well be the same (such as UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown), no mention is made of the degree of comparability of such cases. They are barely mentioned in the same context. No mention is made of the fact that it was those in the UK Houses of Parliament who had effectively cast a blind eye on the potential problems of the financial system prior to the crisis and then were intimately involved in remedial policy-making in its immediate aftermath -- prior to emergence of their expenses crisis.

Potentially more curious, at the time of writing -- just prior to the election of European Members of Parliament (MEPs) -- is that there is no implication that a similar situation might obtain in the European Parliament or in the European Commission itself (as mentioned above). In the latter cases there is a long track record of anecdotal criticism of perks, abuses and absenteeism, and of the extent to which decision-making may be influenced through the "10,000 lobbyists" -- whose business it is to exert such influence by any means possible. Not to be forgotten is that the European Commission was forced to resign in its entirety in 1999, as noted, because of such abuse. There has been a massive lack of transparency with regard to perks accorded in both cases -- funded by the taxpayer. Most curiously, much publicity was given to problematic submission of expenses by the MEPs prior to the current revelations in the UK (David Charter, MEPs 'expenses abuse' hushed up by Brussels, The Times, 21 February 2008). This gave rise to no questions at that time with respect to any equivalent problem in the UK.

As with the case of the Catholic clergy, evident abuses in the cases of the financial system and of parliamentary expenses, are treated as total exceptions. Isolated scapegoats may be suitably identified. Although it is claimed that it is "the system" that is at fault, the question of the extent to which the abuses are to be considered "systemic" is not addressed -- nor the responsibility for the complicity in sustaining such a system without question. Curiously it might be said that those on whose watch such abuses occurred have been rewarded -- financially in the case of the financial crisis and by canonisation in the Catholic case.

What is increasingly striking is the increase in public anger and social unrest as a result of these breaches of confidence. Curiously, given the trivial amounts involved in the abuses by Members of Parliament, is the degree of anger to which these abuses have given rise in the UK, exceeding by far that associated with the "ill-gotten" gains of the beneficiaries of the financial crisis and the associated bailouts. Both of course are to be paid by the taxpayer.

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]