It is not my responsibility

Discussion of probity, or lack of it, in public life inevitably comes down to who, in the end, is responsible.

Under English parliamentary convention, which in this instance extends to the US, as well as British Commonwealth legislatures; final responsibility rests with elected officials and leaders.

To underscore the US aspect of this code, or convention is the famous Truman precedent; The Buck Stops Here.

Sadly, given the obviously loose interpretation of ‘buck’, Truman might have been better advised to use the word responsibility.

Legislators now argue that the size and complexity of the public services is such that they can no longer bear the responsibility for wrongdoing under their watch.

That is akin to saying their jobs are now redundant because the expectations are impossible to fill.
That might be so, but that does not stop people stepping forward to accept these impossible missions.

But is it impossible to implement and administer an effectively functioning public sector? Certainly the corporate giants don’t seem to have any great difficulty doing so, even if aspects of corruption are, at times, seen as the price of doing business.

But duck shoving (or buck shoving?) responsibility is rife throughout most government administrations. I was partly spurred to these thoughts by a blog post: Kvatch Kvetches 10 states including New York and California are suing the EPA

But Kvatch, of course, would never accept full responsibility, and nor should he with so many ripe examples available.
That example is one where the EPA and every other agency involved in various environmental issues all claim to lack the responsibility to act.

The recent Congress in Vietnam threw up a prime example when members discussed the rampant corruption in that state controlled country. In that regime, like governments of all colours, party membership obviously implies entitlement, but not responsibility. ODA corruption talk riles National Assembly

While speakers were unable to dismiss the level of corruption throughout the country, no one was willing to actually take the responsibility for effectively addressing the problem. Probity, it seems, is always someone else’s issue.

In the USA the potentially powerful Congressional Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has reneged on its vital role. Apparently the members of that body see their responsibility as protecting fellow lawmakers rather than the interests of the people who elected them (‘them’ in both senses).

Equally, the ongoing saga of corruption in the White House is not seen as a responsibility of the Administration to abide by the law, but as the responsibility of the media and others not to destabilize government.

In keeping with shifting responsibility to self-interest rather than community interest, the Australian government has gone through a blatantly transparent process of shifting both blame and ultimate responsibility in that countries ‘oil for food’ scandal.

Having consistently proclaimed his faith in the final outcome of the judicial inquiry, after facing the commission himself PM John Howard turned around and blamed the country’s wheat exporter, AWB, for the whole issue.

Meanwhile, Howard’s Foreign Minister was busy sheeting blame back to the UN who were busily deflecting it elsewhere.

We elect them, deputize them as it where, to act on out behalf. Even the most honest starters seem to be seduced by personal interest and party imperatives. And we let them continue to screw us, with little more than the odd show of disgust.