inculcating integrity - impediments and challenges by amorado
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
1/41
1
Impediments and Challenges
Dr. Ronnie V. AmoradoNational Coordinator, Ehem Anticorruption Group
Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow 2009-2010Maxwell School of Citizenship, Syracuse University
Author: Fixing Society(2007)Author: Kakistocracy(2011)
Paper extracted from Kakistocracy: Rule of the Unprincipled, Unethical and Unqualified (2011). Kakistocratic
behavior explains the worlds woes in government corruption, citizens misconduct, corporate scandals,
misdemeanor in the Church, anomalies in civil society, spousal indiscretion and infidelity, the desecration of rule of
law, and even the persistence of illegitimate authoritarian states and despotic rulers. If corruption is betrayal of
public trust, it is kakistocracy that breeds acts of betrayal. Kakistocratic behavior makes corruption intractable and
betrayal as an effective tool of the trade. Corruption persists because of the hegemony of kakistocratic leaders inall types of organizations in the Philippines. Kakistocracy is thus the cultivation of corruption in society.
------------------------------------------
Dr. Ronnie V. Amorado is a Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow (2009-2010) in the United States. He did his postdoctorate
research on leadership, citizenship, kakistocracy and corruption at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public
Affairs of the Syracuse University in New York. He authored Fixing Society(2007) which won the 2008 Outstanding
Book Award given by the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST). Kakistocracy(2011) is a result of his
Humphrey Fellowship as well as his decade experience in good governance, development management, integrity
development and anticorruption work in the Philippines. Dr. Amorado manages and oversees the nationwide
Ehem anticorruption movement in the country, and currently the director of the leadership and governance
programs for the Ateneo de Davao Universitys School of Business and Governance.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
2/41
2
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order;
To put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order;
To put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life;
we must first set our hearts right!
Confucius (551-479 BC)
n Betrayal and Betrayers: The Sociology of Treachery (1991), Malin Akerstrm made the
profound location of betrayal in the private and public spheres and articulated the intimate
connection between the betrayal of relationships on one hand and the betrayal of the country on
the other. The latter often manifests in issues of corruption and betrayal of public trust. These
spheres are the boundaries that shape the bond between and among actors and stakeholders
entering into a relationship or social contract. For betrayal to occur, one first has to belong to a
boundary. Boundaries are norms which can be anything explicitly and implicitly conceived such
as shared values, experiences, information, beliefs, principles, territory, family, organization and
in the broader sense, the society and the country as a whole. Thus for Akerstrm, betrayal is
defined as the crossing of boundaries. Breach of trust also means the violation or breach of
entrusted boundaries, which make up the so-called fiduciary (entrusted) trust. So for Friedrich
(1972), betrayal is indeed a violation of trust.
Akerstrm showed the profound link upon asserting that betrayal not only consists of treachery
toward the country but experiences of betrayal are often entangled in relationships with familyand friends. She identified four important features of the concept of boundary: boundedness
(setting and milieu), belongingness, sharedness and sacredness (a norm to be honored and
respected). Betrayal of trust implies breach of any of the four features.
Anatomy of betrayal
Betrayal is an adversarial contention and a creeping conflict situation between and among the
betrayed and the betrayers. Indirectly involved are the spectators colleagues, co-employees,friends and other stakeholders who are constrained by neutrality, acquiescence, self-
preservation or simply by their position as disinterested party (no direct stakes or involvement in
the betrayal situation). Akerstrm described these constraints as the predicament of middle
positions. This is how the players and stakeholders are located and related in the various case
studies. Their behavior is greatly influenced by their location and intensity as the betrayal
I
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
3/41
3
situation unfolds. Wittingly or unwittingly deliberately or not spectators behavior has a way
of reinforcing the betrayal perpetuated by the betrayer upon the betrayed. The case studies
have proven that inaction and neutrality of middle positions unfortunately encourage the
unfolding betrayal. Middle-positions are also a form of betrayal when specially exercised with
self-preservation motives (Akerstrm 1991).
There are several acts or forms of betrayal that transpired and explicated by various sources
in the case studies: buck-passing; doublespeak; extortion; relocation; reprisal; workplace
mobbing; negligence; fall guy; scapegoating; leakage; battering; infidelity and philandering; and
abandonment.
Buck-passing aims to evade responsibility and parry the blame for self-preservation, even at the
expense of other people. Doublespeak or doubletalk is a deliberate, calculated misuse and
distortion of language with the intention to mislead, pretend, avoid responsibility and
accountability, conceal ones intentions or agenda, give false hopes, and even commit
fraudulence and corruption. Relocation is a euphemism for removal or elimination of someone
who gets in the way. It comes in different derivatives reassignment, floatation, rotation, exile
posting, constructive termination or preemptive promotion. Reprisal is for retaliation against
legitimate whistleblowers. Workplace mobbing is the systematic and malicious attempt by
superiors, co-workers or subordinates to force a person out of the workplace through unjustified
accusations, humiliation, general harassment, emotional abuse and terror. It also comes in
various derivatives such as bullying, mistreatment, pressure, emotional abuse and incivility.
Negligence suggests carelessness and disregard. A scapegoat and fall guy refer to a person
who is easily or conveniently blamed or accused to divert attention away from the real culprits or
problems. Leakage is the process of diversion that causes deprivation. Battering is beating
(often wife beating) while infidelity and philandering all connote spousal unfaithfulness (often
committed by men). Abandonment occurs as a result of deserting or leaving behind ones duty
to family and children, support to friends and even professional obligation.
All of these forms and acts are effectively used to breach the boundary by which trust is suitably
located and cultivated.
In the backdrop of these forms or acts of betrayal are reinforcing dimensions that likewise
emerged in the case studies: familial betrayal (betrayal in the family), political betrayal (betrayal
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
4/41
4
in political arena), pastoral betrayal (betrayal in the Church) and bureaupathy that provides the
bureaucratic environment conducive for betrayal to transpire.
Bureaupathy is corruption and betrayal reinforced by organizational systems and culture
(Hanson 2004). Bureaupathic organizations exhibit excessive and perfunctory emphasis on
hierarchy, policies, procedures, routines, ranks and positions, authorization, signatories,
protocols and a multitude of complex bureaucratic arrangements that impede peoples initiative,
creativity and exercise of professional judgment.
Bearing with betrayal
How do the players conduct themselves in a betrayal situation? The betrayers behave with
impunity as they make use of the power inherent in their position (formal) or temerity (informal)
to betray. It is my belief that deliberate betrayal or intentional betrayal in Reina and Reina
(1999) committed by betrayers is an abuse of power. The abuse becomes more repulsive
when done on somebody who is in a weaker position to defend. This is the reason why betrayal
is almost often committed by those who are positionally, physically or emotionally advantaged.
Logically, the betrayed always feel intensely hurt (Akerstrm 1991) and demonstrate deep
emotions such as indignation, contempt and revenge (Bateson 1977 as cited in Akerstrm
1991). As shown by the various experiences of the betrayed in the case studies, this is part of a
whole package of behavioral coping mechanism known as bureausis in response to a
bureaupathic environment that encourages and sustains betrayal in organizational context
(Thompson 1968).
Bureaupathy results in aloofness of people, mechanical relationships brought about by the strict
norms of formality and impersonality, repression of personal interest and informal associations,
bureaucratic layers (often overlapping or disintegrated), difficulty to move around, displacement
of goals, delays in transactions (red tape), and oftentimes resistance to change by those whoare in authority positions.
The other manifestations of bureausis especially among the betrayed include withdrawal
(apathy and resignation), silence and acquiescence. Thompson suggested that the betrayed
seriously suffer from bureausis when they fail to adjust to the organizational systems,
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
5/41
5
procedures and culture, and such that the inability to adjust is not so much a factor of human
qualities and competencies, but more so of the rigidity of the bureaucratic organization.
Maybe because of bureausis as well, the spectators often find themselves with or without
choice in middle positions like neutrality because of the risk of being disadvantageously
identified with the betrayed. The spectators have to endure a deep predicament in being caught
in middle positions. Akerstrm presented several dangers of middle positions: (a) wittingly or
unwittingly, they reinforce bureaupathy as well as the betrayal of the betrayed; (b) they become
a form of betrayal when exercised in self-preservation motives; and (c) they result in apathy,
indifference and total inaction. The sum total of these dangers only encourages the betrayer
without mercy and restraint.
Solomon and Flores (2001) also elucidated on the widespread problem of cordial hypocrisy orpretended trust which is a consequence of cynicism, resignation, distrust or loss of trust.
Bureaupathy and bureausis are effective breeding grounds of cordial hypocrisy because of the
behavioral manifestations of withdrawal (apathy and resignation), silence and acquiescence of
people. Neutrality and middle positions when they reinforce betrayal also become a cause of
cordial hypocrisy.
Cordial hypocrisy is a strong tendency of people in organizations because of loyalty or fear
to pretend that there is trust when there is none, being polite in the name of harmony when
cynicism and distrust are active poisons, eating away at the very existence of the organization.
(Solomon and Flores 2001:4). Furthermore, cordial hypocrisy comes as a kind of poison that
corrodes relationships even as it seems to hold them together; [and] much the same can be
said about cordial hypocrisy in an organization, where feigned politeness and team spirit may
mask resentments and inefficiencies that are destroying the organization (Solomon and Flores
2001:19).
Trust in a cordial hypocritical pretension is a consequence of lack or loss of trust. This is the
predicament of middle positions, when cordial hypocrisy becomes the pervading conduct among
individuals relating in a distrustful environment. As a matter of perfunctory function, people will
do their jobs, but they will not offer their ideas, or their enthusiasm, or their souls; without trust,
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
6/41
6
corporations or organizations become not a community but a brutish state of nature (Solomon
and Flores 2001:5).
Inciting insightsWithout being absolute and comprehensive, the case studies in this book reveal some
provocative insights and discernible patterns on betrayal of trust:
1. Those who are in positions of trust have increased their capacity to betray. People in
authority are effective betrayers. They are also in the position to defend themselves better if
they are to be the betrayed.
2. In a kakistocracy, betrayal by those who are in power is thus a form of subjection and
subjugation. At the individual and organizational levels, the betrayed are subjected to
various breaches, harassments and violations. At the higher level i.e. organizational to
societal the betrayed are forced to submit and subjugated or dominated by the rule of
the betrayer.
3. Corruption and fraudulent acts are best executed by betrayers in positions of trust because
of the influence inherent in their positions. It is a perfect formula for disaster when people of
dubious characters are placed in positions of trust. They are effective betrayers of public
trust.
4. Betrayers in private spheres (betrayal of friends or family) illustrate the same behavior in
public sphere (committing corruption in organizations or offices). There is no logical or moral
deterrence to make a difference. Thus, a philanderer who betrays his wife and children will
most probably resort to rent-seeking commissions and kickbacks to support his philandering
trysts. It is also difficult to entrust a person who reputedly cheats.
5. There is asymmetrical power in number. Betrayers in group are most effective when they
collude. But this is not true in reverse on the part of the betrayed. Numbers immediately
work in favor of the betrayers, but not among the betrayed.
6. Self-preservation is a very strong motivating force among the betrayer, even at the expense
of other people (betrayed).
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
7/41
7
7. The abuse and misuse of words and rhetorics, especially in doublespeak and buck-passing,
are effective communication tools in betrayal. This is the evil of double meanings found in
what Key (1989) described as double entendre. Deception is married to betrayal.
8. Betrayal is more intense when the betrayer and the betrayed share intimate boundedness.Betrayal among people in personal relationships is most hurtful. Thus, emotional betrayal is
worse than physical betrayal.
9. The use of physical force, especially in battering and beating of the defenseless (women
and children), makes betrayal more evil. A combination of emotional betrayal and physical
betrayal leaves a harrowing mark on the betrayed.
10. The betrayed are losing faith in the system but not in God. Interestingly, those who are
betrayed and hurt show signs of losing faith in organizational or societal facilities (offices,
government, courts, law enforcement agencies), but they have demonstrated an increasing
sense of spirituality for a coping mechanism. It is worth mentioning that almost all of the
betrayed have seriously turned to prayers even the not so prayerful as their last resort of
defense or survival.
11. Complementing this spirituality is the philosophy that betrayal is having a redemptive value
for the victims of betrayal through the so-called karma(providence) or a poetic justice where
resilience and patience are virtues to be rewarded and betrayal to be punished sooner orlater. This kind of philosophy helps explain why and how the betrayed as victims sustain
their strength in the case studies.
Apart from the concept of a fiduciary trust, a theory of personal attachment can be developed
from the case studies. Betrayal is most felt and painful when there is attachment. Betrayal
becomes more intense when there is more personal attachment, and becomes less tumultuous
when there is less personal attachment. This explains why betrayal among friends, in the family
or intimate relationships, or even in ones profession is very passionate because they are
characterized by personal attachments.
Reina and Reina (1999) also advanced the concept of intentional and unintentional betrayal as
a breach of trust or the perception of a breach of trust. Intentional betrayal is a self-serving
action done with the purpose of hurting, damaging or harming another person, [while] an
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
8/41
8
unintentional betrayal is the by-product of another persons self-serving action that results in
people being hurt, damaged or harmed (Reina and Reina 1999:10). When juxtaposed with
fiduciary trust and personal attachment, deliberate intent makes betrayal very intense and
possibly intractable. Intentional betrayal fatally combines with breaches of fiduciary trust and
personal attachment.
The case studies also resonate with my observations as well as the various anticorruption
workshops I have conducted for the past 10 years. They have become dangerous patterns of
organizational and societal betrayal and corruption:
1. Appointments in government positions are made to repay political favors or give political
accommodation; they also undermine meritocracy and further sacrifice public service when
the appointed is not qualified.
2. Government agencies are held hostage in their annual budget hearings (General
Appropriations Act) if they do not accommodate political agenda and caprices of many if
not all legislators.
3. Career officials are undermined, bypassed, sacrificed, floated or re-assigned to far-flung
areas if they do not toe the line of politicians.
4. Just to be secure in their position, some government officials under duress have to
donate portions of their RATA (monthly operational allowance) to politicians; this is a new
form of political extortion.
5. Public funds intended for development projects are used to gain political mileage; projects
are given to supporters only, or used as concessions in exchange for political support; this is
a new form of political parochialism.
6. Development projects are over-priced or implemented in sub-standard quality due to
systematic kickbacks, commissions and cuts.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
9/41
9
In all of the above, political corruption and betrayal are very widespread and pervasive. They all
contribute to the increasing and intensifying public cynicism and distrust towards the
government.
Csorba (2004) implied of the powerful public expectation at the crux of the concept of betrayal of
public trust. This expectation is innate in fiduciary trust and personal attachment. Betraying
public trust especially by leaders and governments means betraying public expectation. In
Trust: The One Thing that Makes or Breaks a Leader(2004), Csorba coined the notion of trust
deficit in government as a result of the violation of the public expectation: It is in the area of
government where most people identify leadership and have had historically higher
expectations of it. However, the news is not good. The level of cynicism and mistrust toward
leaders in the public arena is at an all-time high (Csorba 2004:73). Thus for Csorba, the crisis
of betrayal of trust in governments, business, civil society, the Church, and the family is the
crisis of stewardship and leadership.
Csorbas disappointment is best illustrated in Coronels Betrayal of Public Trust(2000). Coronel
systematically documented and analyzed corruption and malfeasance in the Philippines from
the period 1990-2000, a decade-long investigation spanning three government administrations
Presidents Corazon C. Aquino, Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph E. Estrada. This shows the
intractability and incessant pervasiveness of corruption in Philippine government, especially with
the increasingly growing number of unresolved national scandals that continue to hound the
succeeding administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Corruption spares no one,
and public trust continues to erode since the Martial rule of President Ferdinand E. Marcos in
1969 to early 1980s.
Despite their more than three decades apart, Friedrich (1972) and Lobaczewski (2006) agreed
and went to the extent of describing corruption and betrayal as a pathological and a
ponerological case. In the Pathology of Politics, Friedrich bewailed:
Corruption, violence, betrayal and treason, secrecy and propaganda are all politicalphenomena that are ubiquitous, though universally condemned. In relations betweenpersons, the kind of behavior they refer to is surely wrong, and hence they are importantelements in the general public dislike of and revulsion from politics, especially indemocratic societies (Friedrich 1972:1)
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
10/41
10
What is pathological is dysfunctional. It is a deviation of standards. Corruption and betrayal of
public trust are seen as dysfunctional because they are destructive of a particular political
order... and such a classic conception of corruption as a general disease of the body politic
persisted into modern times (Friedrich 1972: 131). Thus corruption and betrayal of public trust
interact and mutually reinforce (Friedrich 1972:141), as they closely link with the other
pathologies and other social illness, that is, of the sickness of contemporary politics; they are
also at times spoken of as [the] cancer of the body politic (Freidrich 1972:4). Indeed, corruption
and the betrayal of public trust is a normatively deviant behavior; it is deviating from the
prevailing moral standards of a given context where private gain is made at public expense and
the corrupt actions induced result in damage to the organization or to other people.
In kakistocratic behavior, the betrayal comes as an abuse of power the abuse in the use of
position for profit, preferment or prestige. This is the private gain at public expense.
With an acquiescent populace reinforcing corruption and betrayal of public trust, the general
public is also largely part of the problem. Apathy among the citizens is likewise a betrayal of
public trust. This is especially true when people sell their votes during elections, or when they do
nothing when they witness anomalies in public transactions, or simply by committing
misconduct.
Corruption is not just the abuse of power by those who are in authority. It is as profoundly
pathological in citizens misconduct. Citing the historian and moralist English Baron Lord Acton,
Friedrich echoed: corruption results in moral depravity which power is believed to cause in
men; they no longer think about what is right action or conduct, but only about what is expedient
action or conduct (Friedrich 1972:128).
This is the same problem observed by Lobaczewski when he proclaimed that societys survival
[from injustices] must be protected, but abuse of power comes about too easily (Lobaczewski
2006:126). Lobaczewski described social injustice as a ponerological interest that includes
corruption and betrayal of public trust. In his book, Political Ponerology:A Science on the
Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (2006), Lobaczewski defined ponerology as an
interdisciplinary study to explain social injustice. As a pathological reality, corruption and
betrayal of public trust cause serious damage and social injustice, thus must be of ponerological
interest; a field of study on the injustice brought about by political problems.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
11/41
11
Thrusting trust
The locus of betrayal of public trust is not about betrayal itself. It is all about trust. Citing a basic
dictionary definition of trust, Bracy (2002) used trust as a firm reliance in the virtues of honesty,
dependability, and strength of character of someone. Invoking the standard Aristotelian formulaof virtue as a trait rather than a passion or faculty, Solomon and Flores (2001:79) looked at
trustworthiness as a trait of character and therefore a plausible candidate for virtue. For Reina
and Reina (1999:16), trust is the tendency to view others as dependable and reliable in fulfilling
expectations.
Thus trust is almost always equated with virtue, and the lack of trust (or betrayal of trust)
actually means lack of virtue (or betrayal of virtue). Friedrich again argued for this and cited
Machiavellis notion of a virtuor the virtue of the good citizen. For Machiavelli, corruption is the
process by which virtuis undermined and eventually destroyed, since most men have become
weak and lacking in the virtu(Friedrich 1972).
But in Building Trust, Bracy (2002) likewise cautioned against the reductionist use of trust as
mere virtue. For him, trust is not just virtue, it is also competence. Virtue alone does not earn
trust. A good and trustworthy person does not automatically qualify him to be an effective
governer. One needs skill and capability. On the other hand, skill and capability without virtue
does not also make one trustworthy. Covey (2006) supported this view when he advanced the
concept of balancing character and competence: Once you become aware that both character
and competence are vital to trust, you can see how the combination of these two dimensions is
reflected in the approach of effective leaders and observers everywhere. People might use
different words to express the idea, but if you reduce the words to their essence, what emerges
is a balancing of character and competence (Covey 2006:31).
Covey was thus more upfront in his integrated definition. Simply put, trust means confidence.
The opposite of trust distrust is suspicion. When you trust people, you have confidence in
them in their integrity and in their abilities. When you distrust people, you are suspicious of
them of their integrity, their agenda, their capabilities, or their track record (Covey 2006:5).
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
12/41
12
Bracys and Coveys views support my introductory claim about integrity (character) and
intelligence (competence). Without integrity, intelligence is impunity. Without intelligence,
integrity is mediocrity. Thus to be trusted one must gain intelligence and integrity; one must
cultivate character and competence.
While virtue and character form the normative aspects of trust, competence is located in its
context or specificity. Bracy advanced the idea of the use of trust in specific area, where trust is
the faith placed upon a persons ability or word in some specific context. We may trust an
honest medical doctor to cure our illness, but we doubt if he can be helpful in solving
engineering problems. The contextuality or specificity of trust emerges when we decide when to
give trust to the medical doctor. And if the doctor is dishonest applying the universal normative
character trait (virtue) we can never trust the medical doctor even if he is good in medicine,
even if he is also good in engineering. Bracys formula helps explain why it is difficult to trust
clergymen who are assumed to have virtue and live in virtue to run for elective positions
without the proper training in public governance. This is also very true in other professions
which have very specific context forming their competence.
Trust is also dynamic, not static. Its dynamism is characterized by another principle that it
thrives in relationships. Using four elements of trust (capacity trust or readiness to give trust,
contractual trust, communication trust and competence trust), Reina and Reina espoused
healthy relationships based on integrity and character, as well as on openness (capacity trust)
which is a reciprocal process. As trust begets trust, mutually trusting relationships grow with
more sharing of information (communication trust), keeping agreements (contractual trust), and
respect for peoples abilities (competence trust). For them, trust is a relationship of mutual
confidence in contractual performance, honest communication, expected competence, and a
capacity for unguarded interaction (Reina and Reina 1999:10).
For Csorba, trust is a constant work in progress. Like Solomon and Flores, to understand trust is
to build trust into everyday practices and relationships and to develop institutions in which such
practices and relationships are not only possible but necessary. Trust is not just a means or
medium or social glue for cohesion, it is something that we do and something that we make,
build and maintain, we sustain with our promises, our commitments, our emotions, and our
sense of our own integrity (Solomon and Flores 2001).
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
13/41
13
Trust in types
Reina and Reina (1999) earlier advanced four types: capacity trust, contractual trust,
communication trust and competence trust. Capacity trust is the readiness and willingness to
trust others. Contractual trust is trust for character in interaction with others. Communication
trust is trust in conversations and rhetorics, the use and disclosure of information, and respect
for words. Competence trust is trust of ability, capability or competence of people. When all of
these types are present, they form what Reina and Reina called transactional trust. It is
incremental and mutual; one has to trust in order to be trusted, and one has to earn trust in
order to gain trust.
Reina and Reina also distinguished transactional trust from transformational trust. The former
serves as the necessary minimum condition to establish trust. But transformational trust occurs
when the amount of trust within a team or organization reaches a critical point and increases
exponentially, becoming self-generating and synergistic (Reina and Reina 1999:155). This kind
of transformational trust is characterized by conviction, courage, compassion and community
(cooperation). Reina and Reinas notion of transactionalism departs from the classical debate
on transactional and transformative trust in leadership theories, where the former is seen as
more used for self-serving accommodation and encouraging dependence while the latter for
empowerment and emancipation.
Several other authors also make use of low-trust and high-trust relationships, and betrayal of
trust easily occurs in the former (Bass 2000; Solomon and Flores 2001; Bracey 2002;
Northouse 2004; Manette 2005; Shaw 2005; Covey 2006; Bennis et al 2008; Boleman and Deal
2008). High-trust relationships or high-trust societies exude great amounts of virtue and
competence among the populace.
Solomon and Flores characterized low-trust societies as trust generally limited within the
boundaries of family (or clan and tribe) only and others beyond the family are suspicious. High-
trust society occurs when peoples trust goes beyond and outside just the family members and
extends towards institutions and organizations, which in turn cumulates as trust bestowed upon
society as a whole. Low-trust is dangerous to society in general because it will result in people
losing a sense of community and care for other people. A distrustful family tends to raise
distrustful children (Solomon and Flores 2001:39), and one can imagine the kind of society
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
14/41
14
inhabited by distrustful people. Sociologists are completely correct to say that the family is the
basic institution of society. Theodore Roosevelt once quipped on the importance of trust and
integrity in the family: It is the tasks connected with the home that are the fundamental tasks of
humanity. If the mother and father do not do their duty, there will be no next generation, or a
generation that is worse than none at all.
Furthermore when there is betrayal of trust even in and within families through battering,
infidelity, philandering and abandonment resulting in not a few broken families, low-trust
societies are further imperiled. At the very least, low-trust societies still assume and hold on to
some amount of trust of family institutions. But with family break-ups, spousal betrayal and all
the forms of familial betrayal earlier explained, what will happen to the smallest remaining
amount of trust and integrity in low-trust societies? As Theodore Roosevelt invoked, it will
indeed be worse than none at all.
Solomon and Flores pursued further in their conception of basic trust, authentic trust and blind
trust. Basic trust is the simplest kind of trust; it is a perfunctory and assumed trust based on
thinking habits. Basic trust is based on and formed via reasonable assumptions. People just
trust the pilots simply and perfunctorily when they take on their flights. There is an assumed
trust of character (that pilots are not drinking while flying) or competence (that pilots are well
trained in flying). Rarely do people check and ascertain about their pilots before taking on their
flights.
On the other hand, authentic trust is more than perfunctory trust. People behave and judge in
evidence, discernment, evaluation and conscientiousness. People in the grocery stores
normally check on their merchandise before actually doing the purchase. Corporations also
require applicants to submit their credentials for screening and validation before hiring.
Simple trust is reflexive and unreflective, while authentic trust is reflective and builds on and
goes beyond simple trust. But a blind trust is irrational (no reasonable assumption) and at times
deceptive and neither acts in the interest of simple trust and authentic trust. Cults often conduct
themselves in blind trust.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
15/41
15
In the case studies, there are several types of trust according to layers (thus several layers of
betrayal): personal, relationships, familial and friendship networks, organizational and societal.
These types or layers nearly correspond with Coveys five waves of trust acting like ripples in
the ocean: self trust (at the core), relationship trust, organizational trust, market trust, and
societal trust. Each type is characterized by key operative principles.
As described by Covey in his bestselling book, The Speed of Trust(2006), self trust deals with
confidence we have in ourselves in the ability to achieve goals, to keep commitments, to walk
the talk, and to inspire trust in others. The key principle is credibility (from the Latin credereto
mean to believe). Relationship trust is to establish and increase trust with others; it is learning
how to interact with others that increase trust and avoid interacting in ways that destroy it
(Covey 2006:125). The key principle is consistency in behavior. Organizational trust is the ability
of leaders to generate trust in all kinds of organizations (including families as institutions), andall the so called micro-units of organizations (organizations within organizations). The key
principle is alignment. Market trust is also trust dealing with various publics (customers, clients,
partners, investors, etc); and the key principle is reputation. Societal trust is the over-all trust
value for the society at large, as the sum effect of all the other waves of trust. The key principle
is contribution, meaning the ability to give back for societal development and nation-building.
In sum, Coveys typology of trust brings out the importance of the five principles: credibility,
consistency, alignment, reputation and contribution. These are the same operative principles
necessary to reducing betrayal and restoring trust. In Machiavellis virtu, these principles can
serve as the virtues of good citizenship at various levels: individual, relationships among
individuals, organizational, markets and societal.
Self trust appears as the most important foundation in all types of trust. Without self trust, it will
be difficult for the other types or waves to flourish. Self trust is the first wave of ripples
necessary to create more ripples in relationships, organizations and the society as a whole.
At the core of self trust is another very important concept of credibility, or believability. Covey
identified four components in building ones credibility: integrity, intent, capabilities and results.
Coveys integrity and capability similarly subscribed to the notions of other authors as earlier
explained. Integrity is more than honesty. It means integratedness or wholeness (French
integritand Latin integritas; also coming from the root word integer to mean as whole). For
Covey, the integratedness and wholeness are demonstrated in the congruence inside and
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
16/41
16
outside (attitude and behavior) as well as in words/rhetorics and actions. This is in accord with
Aristotles peripatetic philosophy to walk the talk (to act in accord with words, rhetorics or
promises), and not just to talk the talk (words without actions). Capabilities as means to
produce results (behavior) include talents, attitudes, skill, knowledge and styles. Without
capability, integrity and intent are difficult to develop (capabilities are actualization of potentials).
Aristotle also referred to ethosor ethical appeal for credibility.
But he added two more that shape a deeper kind of credibility: intent and results. Intent deals
with motives, agendas and the resulting behavior. Motives are very important in establishing
trust, as Mahatma Gandhi exhorted: The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives,
everything he does becomes tainted. Results include track record, actual performance or
getting the right things done. Good results come from the congruence of integrity, intent and
capabilities. Results serve as the evidence, the demonstrated behavior of credibility.
Both integrity and intent are matters of character. Integrity without good intent is useless; good
intent without integrity (of people) is difficult. For their part, both capabilities and results are
matters of competence.
It is the assertion of Covey that the four principles should be present and acting in accord with
one another. The lack of one principle erodes credibility. Using these four principles as
benchmark, Covey correctly observed:
The problem in organizations, however, is that many ethics solutions focus oncompliance. The compliance definition of ethics is not one of integrity or integratedness;it is a watered-down, devalued definition that essentially means follow the rules.Congruence is when integrity means there is no gap between intent and behavior;seamless, generally the same inside and out. It is congruence, not compliance, which willultimately create credibility and trust (Covey 2006:61-62).
But Covey also cautioned against these principles arrogating upon others. Integrity also
includes humility as a virtue (Covey 2006:63).
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
17/41
17
Figure-1 shows the schematic amalgamation of the relationships of various types of trust
discussed thus far.
Trust erodes Trust cumulates
Figure-1: Schematic amalgamation of trust typologies
Transformational TrustTransactional Trust
Authentic TrustBasic Trust
Types:
Buck-passingDoublespeakExtortion
RelocationReprisalMobbing
NegligenceFall guy
ScapegoatingLeakageBatteringInfidelity
PhilanderingAbandonment
Low-Trust High-TrustBetrayal of trustMistrustDistrust
Loss of trustBlind trust
Pretended trust(Cordial hypocrisy)
Self/Family/Clan/Tribe
Relational(Individuals)
Organizations/Institutions
Markets/Publics/
Clienteles
Community/Society
Principles:Credibility | Consistency | Alignment | Reputation | Contribution
IntegrityIntent
Capabilities
Results
Dimensions:Bureaucracy (Bureaupathy/Bureausis) | Familial | Political | Pastoral
Elements:Capacity Trust | Contractual Trust | Communication Trust | Competence Trust
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
18/41
18
Theorizing trust
The task of theorizing trust which also includes theorizing betrayal is to derive some
theoretical propositions or sets of operative principles that suggest clear behavioral indicators. I
have aimed at looking deeper in the problem of corruption using a lens of a betrayal theory as
can be culled out from the various case studies and my experiences in conducting
anticorruption workshops for the past ten years.
The main proposition is that corruption is a betrayal of public trust. An amalgamated theory of
betrayal gives attention to the many forms or acts of betrayal as earlier presented and explained
in the anatomy of betrayal. These forms or acts thrive in several dimensions, foremost of which
is the conducive pathological environment known as bureaupathy. Against the backdrop of
these dimensions are layers or waves that create ripple effects: individual, relationships among
individuals, organizational and societal.
Individual or self trust appears as the foundational core of trust that forms and cumulates in
relational, organizational and societal trust. A high-trust society builds on the trust established
and nurtured by its members who demonstrate collective participation and positive contribution
for societal development and nation-building. Solomon and Flores proffered: Trust also
provides the preconditions of civil society, civil as not just in the sense of getting alone but in
the much stronger ancient sense of a polity, an organized and coordinated community
(Solomon and Flores 2001:11).
Based on worldwide workshops, Covey (2006) consolidated some indicators that characterize
low-trust organizations and high-trust organizations. I believe these indicators can serve as
organizational checklists to gauge the temper of trust in any organization, based of course on
intelligible perceptions of its members.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
19/41
19
Low-Trust Organizations Checklist High-Trust Organizations Checklist
People manipulate or distort facts Information is shared openly
People withhold and hoard information Mistakes are tolerated and encouragedas a way of learning
Getting the credit is very important The culture is innovative and creative
People spin the truth to their advantage People are loyal to those who areabsent
New ideas are openly resisted and stifled People talk straight and confront issues
Mistakes are covered up or covered over There is real communicationand real collaboration
Most people are involved in a blame game,bad-mouthing others
People share credit abundantly
There is an abundance of watercooler talk(too much coffee breaks, kitchen conversations)
There are few meetings after themeetings
There are numerous meetings after the meetings Transparency is a practiced value
There are many undiscussables People are candid and authenticPeople tend to overpromise and underdeliver There is a high degree of accountability
There are a lot of violated expectations,for which people try to make excuses
There is palpable vitality and energy people can feel the positive momentum
People pretend bad things arent happening
or are in denialThe energy level is low
People often feel unproductive tension sometimes even fear
Bracey (2002) further described that high trust is not built simply on power, position, experience,expertise or fiat. Much more goes into the theory and reality (practice). He then proposed a setof principles of building trust:
1. Trust is never given to another person globally and unconditionally. It always hasto do with a specific area of expertise or action (contingent and contextual trust).
2. Trust involves both ability (competence; demonstration) and word (rhetoric; pronouncement;character). You are capable in this area and true to your word if you promise to dosomething in that area.
3. Trust comes in different degrees or levels, even as it is always defined relativeto some area of action or behavior.
4. Though trust can be one-sided, it is best when it is mutual.
5. Trust can grow between people, or it can erode.
6. Lost trust can also be recovered and rehabilitated.
7. Trust can be built. There are methods and skills for facilitating it.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
20/41
20
Solomon and Flores (2001) likewise offered some principles or features of trust:
1. Trust should not be confused with the poisonous practice that we call cordial hypocrisy,the defensive pretense of trust and agreement that hides fear and resentment and makeshonest communication impossible.
2. The problem of trust is not merely an analytic or theoretical one. The problem is practical:how to create and maintain trust; how to move from distrust to trust, from a breach of trustto recovery.
3. Breaches of trust do not mark the end of trust but are part of the process of trusting.
4. Trust is a matter of reciprocal relationships, not of prediction, risk and reliance.
5. Trust is transformative. It is not a matter of trusting or being trusted so much as it is a matterof changing each other the relationship through trust. This is what we mean when we talkabout dynamic relationships.
6. Trust is a matter of making and keeping commitments, and the problem of trust is not lossof confidence but the failure to cultivate making commitments.
7. The concept of high-trust and low-trust societies is changing, dynamic and cultivable. Theyare not fixed destinies or historical necessities.
8. Trust involves sincerity, authenticity, integrity, virtue, and honor (matters of ethics). It is not aneutral character trait, not just a cultural pattern, not a matter of individual good judgment. Itis not a matter of unthinking habit (simple trust) but a matter of conscientious integrity(authentic trust).
9. The worst enemies of trust are cynicism, selfishness, and a nave conception of life in which
one expects more than one is willing to give. Resentment, distrust, and inauthenticity are theresult.
10. Self-trust is the most basic and most often neglected form of trust (if not, at least self-confidence). Distrust is often a projection of missing self-trust.
11. Trust goes hand in hand with truth. Lying is always a breach of trust.
In Trust: The One Thing that Makes or Breaks a Leader(2005), Csorba likewise proposed
seven basic principles of trust in leadership:
1. Trusted leaders are cast from the crucible of their experiences.2. Trusted leaders are moulded by formal and informal mentors.3. Trusted leaders live out selfless character.4. Trusted leaders have a sense that they are called to lead.5. Trusted leaders handle privilege with great candor.6. Trusted leaders are tenaciously focused on their objectives.7. Trusted leaders invest in the lives and leadership of followers.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
21/41
21
In her own research, Manette (2005) also tried to assess spousal betrayal in the family by
presenting some behavioral changes especially when husbands commit infidelity and
philandering in The Ultimate Betrayal: Recognizing, Uncovering and Dealing with Infidelity.
Inculcating integrity
As a virtu of good citizenship and an inherent foundation of trust integrity is generally
featured as steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code of conduct or a way of life. This
is the normative outlook of integrity. It is also commonly featured as the state of soundness, of
being unimpaired or undamaged, or a reference to a quality or condition of being whole,
undivided or unbroken. Thus, integrity signifies intactness or completeness. This is the
anatomical definition of integrity.
Incidentally, the ancient definition of corruption is to break something. In the ancient times
corruption is defined as the veering away from some original pure form, a perversion of
something from an original state of purity and integrity. The Ancient Greeks referred to
corruption as luo, stasis, metaboleand diapthora. The precursor root words evolved from the
Latin corruptus, corruzioneand corrumpere(cor is the heart and rumpere is to break) they
all signify the breaking of something considered pure and good. Thus, corruption is by its
origin to break the state of purity and integrity.
Some metaphors have been created to illustrate the normative and anatomical views of
integrity. I find the metaphor of integrity as a plant as very interesting. We sow the seeds, water
them and grow the plant of integrity, then cultivate and tend to it, or it withers and dies. The
basic principle is that integrity needs planting, watering, cultivating and tending. Otherwise, it
weakens and dies. This metaphor resonates with Chris Czach Hidalgos essay: "Integrity can
also be considered as a seed. It is planted in youth, watered in childhood and blossoms in
adulthood. The more you water it throughout life, the more it grows and blooms. Just as it is with
plants, if neglected at any point, it will wither and die!"
Another interesting metaphor likens integrity to the inorganic metal, with the important principle
of preventing the rusts by scraping, polishing, cleaning it up and letting it shine. British Bishop
Robert South (1634-1716) was quoted about this metaphor of the lack of integrity: Guilt upon
the conscience, like rust upon iron, both defile and consume it, gnawing and creeping into it,
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
22/41
22
as that does which at last eats out, the very heart and substance of the metal!
My most favorite metaphor of the virtue of integrity is the instinct of honesty combining the
features of the organic plant and the inorganic metal espoused by Randy David, the foremost
Filipino sociologist:
Ive sometimes wondered why corruption is the word used for acts of dishonestycommitted by people in positions of trust. Corruption means debasement, decay,deterioration, weakening. These terms are usually applied to metal and, in particular, toliving matter. So, what is it that decays, deteriorates, or weakens in corrupt people?...I think that what corruption signifies when applied to human behavior is the weakening ofinstincts --- in this case, the instinct for honesty. On this simple instinct depends many ofour social institutions. Instincts are sources of energy, and corruption is energy in decline(David 2004:A15).
Other metaphors have since been used reflecting the normative-anatomical view of integrity.
We refer to the integrity of data and information to signify their completeness and truthfulness.Professional integrity refers to a person who is an expert, or credible and objective as called for
by his profession. Artistic integrity suggests intact, genuine and uncontaminated art (like in
painting). Structural integrity suggests the soundness and intactness in a building construction.
A financial integrity indicates sustainability or income capacity. Intellectual integrity denotes
intellectual honesty and originality, as well as to stop plagiarism by developing the habit of citing
sources of materials. Technological integrity means a reliable or functional device, machinery or
equipment. A systems integrity refers to one that is functioning or performing.
In the broader sense, political integrity for instance indicates a political group that is united and
strong. It can also characterize a political system or program that is credible or popular. Closely
related to political integrity is territorial integrity, which connotes the complete or undivided
physical boundary of a political sovereign free from internal and external aggression. Cultural
integrity represents an intact or indigenous tradition. Environmental integrity signifies pristine,
unspoiled and unpolluted ecology.
There is even a sexual integrity that suggests a sexual relationship that works. Perkins (1997)makes the exhortation of sexual integrity that preserves the purity and sanctity of marriages, the
security of families, the vitality of relationships, and the spirituality of sexuality.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
23/41
23
All of these metaphors illustrate the normative and anatomical outlook of integrity, which also
serve as a benchmark. Thus, integrity is also like a compass or guide post that provides
direction and a reference point of a good conduct.
A violation of the normative and anatomical outlook implies a deviation, impurity, contamination
and breaking up. These features go against the virtues of the highest form of integrity the
moral integrity.
Moral integrity consists of the virtues of uprightness (regard for what is good, regard for the
common good), probity, ethical conduct and incorruptibility.
Quito (1989) argues on the side of the moral law, exhorting that to be ethical and moral is to
conform to and live in accordance with the standards of what is good and right. Thus, morality is
the quality of goodness or badness of human acts. It is also the rightness or wrongness
of human acts as they conform (moral) or do not conform to standards (immoral). For the
French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), this law of what is good and right dictates
that no society can survive, let alone function properly without the elements of honesty
and truthfulness (Quito 1989:51; Amorado 2007:195). Necessarily, integrity has to manifest in
moral integrity for the sake of humanity and society, for states and governments. The Italian
philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) already espoused that government is subject to
moral standards (Santiago 2001:31; Amorado 2007:195). In governance therefore, integrity and
morality call for the promotion of the welfare and the protection of the common good (Amorado
2007).
In Corruption and Anticorruption: An Applied Philosophical Approach(2005), Miller et al
espoused for the morality of integrity as a tool to combat corruption. They proposed three moral
guidelines or standards by which to gauge whether or not a particular act is moral or corrupt
(immoral): (a) deontological (by nature the act is bad; inherence wrongness); (b) teleological
(wrongness by goal and motivation; ill intent); and (c) consequential (the consequences is bad).
Miller et alcontended that all acts of moral integrity qualify in all the three guidelines.
Integrity is not an inert concept (just either with or without integrity). Like the concept of trust,
integrity is dynamic, a constant work in progress as humans strive to live a life of integrity.
People tend to act with integrity at times or maybe act without such in many times, depending
on a given particular condition. It develops or erodes. Thus I propose a continuum of secular
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
24/41
24
integrity, or integrity in the secular world, and moral integrity to illustrate the range and scale of
development or erosion of integrity (Figure-2).
The continuum is based on the reality that one can have secular integrity but without moral
integrity. The vice versa is also true. However, the continuum establishes the connection
between the two. Secular integrity finds meaning with moral purpose. There is a higher
transcendental meaning in our secular existence. On the other hand, moral ethics manifests
itself in secular integrity. Integrity is an embodied integrity. To be good means to do well in our
secular world. While secular integrity resonates with etiquette, moral integrity manifests in
ethics.
Like distrust and mistrust, dis-integrity is the erosion of integrity. Without personal, social
(relational) and organizational integrity, it is difficult to establish low-trust and high-trust society.
Broken trust, or a lost trust, as a result of betrayal is also dis-integrity (Figure-3)
SECULAR INTEGRITY MORAL INTEGRITY
Themes:EtiquetteProprietyDecorumProtocols
Good mannersCustoms
Themes:Ethics
UprightnessMoralsVirtues
Code of conduct
Figure-2: Integrity continuum, types and themes
Types:Integrity of data/information
Professional integrityArtistic integrity
Structural integrityFinancial integrity
Intellectual integrityTechnological integrity
Systems integritySexual integrityCultural integrityPolitical integrity
Territorial integrityEnvironmental integrity
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
25/41
25
A flourishing integrity will reveal its morphological properties, or built-in features, that resonate
well with the principles and facets of high-trust societies with higher degrees of authentic trust
and transformational trust. These properties include (1) indivisibility, (2) consistency, (3)
visibility, (4) cultivability, (5) depletability, and (6) replenishability.
An act (or type) of integrity is coherent, whole and undivided (indivisibility) in as more chances
as possible; it does not waiver (consistency). It is manifested to be seen and felt by others
(visibility or track record). If not nurtured or protected (like in the virtues of reputation and
credibility), integrity erodes, dehydrates, drains and depletes (depletability). But one is also
given the capacity to recharge, reboot and re-energize his or her eroding integrity (cultivability
and replenishability).
In situations where there seems to be bipolar incongruence, a person is always in a tug-of-war
with himself or herself that result in predicaments and making hard decisions every day that
further result in either the erosion or cultivation of his or her integrity.
Themes:
Disintegrated
Divided
Lacking
Broken
DeformAdulterated
Tampered
Corruption
Compromised
Themes:Whole
CompleteIntactSound
Form/Reform
UnitedAdequate
PureUpright
Ascendancy
Figure-3: Integrity and dis-integrity, high-trust and low-trust continuum
Dis-integrity Integrity
Types:Integrity of data/information
Professional integrityArtistic integrity
Structural integrityFinancial integrity
Intellectual integrityTechnological integrity
Systems integrity
Sexual integrityCultural integrityPolitical integrity
Territorial integrityEnvironmental integrity
Low-Trust High-TrustBetrayal of trust
Mistrust
Distrust
Loss of trust
Blind trust
Pretended trust
(Cordial hypocrisy)
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
26/41
26
Often, one is caught in quandary when his personal values conflict with the systems in his work.
It is also imperative to have both intelligence (competence) and integrity, but many are pulled
apart when forced to choose when one part is lacking. One is also conflicted when her public life
(role and reputation) is different from her private life. Or how can one benefit and uphold private
trust (basic trust in low-trust societies) when he is found violating public trust, or vice versa? In
as far as integrity cumulates as moral integrity, private trust and public trust profoundly connect
with Divine Trust. Betrayal of trust also means betrayal of Divine Trust.
The tug-of-war predicaments are certainly brought about by the bipolar incoherence or
incongruence of opposing poles. When unchecked, this incoherence will breed dis-integrity or
dis-integration in a persons life.
By a bit of philosophical discourse, another important bipolar quandary sums it up: spirit/soul
versus body. I believe moral integrity resides in a persons spirit or soul (or the core in the
Greeks reference to corrumpereas corruption). Secular integrity manifests in bodily skills and
dexterity of human faculties. They mutually nourish a persons integrity. But when in
dissonance, they become a bipolar dilemma that can result in discordant behavior. We are
bewildered to see adroit doctors of medicine who are chain smokers. We are disappointed with
the incompetent piety, but we revolt against competent crooks. This is the problem of the lack of
role models in our society. In integrity, congruence and coherence are sine qua non.
The bipolar problem actually helps in understanding the erosion of integrity through wilful, blind
and minimalist secularization (unable to link with moral integrity), spirit/soul-body dissonance,
habitual wrongdoing, ostentatious misdemeanour, indifference and apathy, and impunity of
corruption.
To be able to check and counter dis-integrity, it is important to acknowledge and accept that
what cultivates integrity nurtures human dignity. People need to do a lot of constant reflection
and deep discernment, exercise restraint and temperament, accept humility of remorse, and live
in secular and moral harmony. The next figure illustrates the location of the bipolar problem in
the integrity continuum.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
27/41
27
Integrity pull:Constant reflectionDeep discernment
RestraintTemperament
Humility of remorseSecular-moral harmony
Themes:
Disintegrated
Divided
Lacking
BrokenDeform
Adulterated
Tampered
Corruption
Compromised
Themes:Whole
CompleteIntactSound
Form/ReformUnitedAdequate
PureUpright
Ascendancy
Figure-4: Bipolar predicaments in integrity and dis-integrity continuum
Dis-integrity Integrity
Types:Integrity of data/information
Professional integrityArtistic integrity
Structural integrityFinancial integrity
Intellectual integrityTechnological integrity
Systems integritySexual integrityCultural integrityPolitical integrity
Territorial integrityEnvironmental integrity
Low-Trust High-TrustBetrayal of trust
Mistrust
Distrust
Loss of trust
Blind trust
Pretended trust
(Cordial hypocrisy)
Dis-integrity pull:Wilful secularizationBlind secularization
Minimalist secularizationSpirit/soul-body dissonance
Habitual wrongdoingOstentatious misdemeanour
Indifference and apathy
Impunity of corruption
Bipolar predicaments:Intelligence vs. integrity
Personal integrity vs. systems normsPrivate life vs. public life
Private trust vs. public trust(+ Divine Trust)
Spirit/soul vs. Body
Morphological properties:IndivisibilityConsistency
Visibility
CultivabilityDepletability
Replenishability
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
28/41
28
A conception of citizenship
The American economist John Kenneth Galbraith developed the Theory of Countervailing
Power as a remedy against monopolistic transactions in the modern liberal economies. Free
market bargaining of goods and services is an effective instrument of the classical liberal
economics, but modern economies have given massive powers and influence to large business
conglomerates to control or manipulate the free market process, resulting in monopolies, cartels
and a whole package of fraudulent business practices. This is a form kakistocracy. This is the
breeding ground of betrayal of public trust emanating from economic malpractices.
Countervailing power is the theory of political modification of markets, giving rise to trade
unions, citizens organizations, civil society groups and other anti-state capture pressure groups
to offset and counteract business excessive advantage or abusive practices.
To restore public trust, I proffer a concept of citizenship as a countervailing power to offset and
reduce kakistocratic behavior that breeds corruption and acts of betrayal.
This is a kind of citizenship that serves as a beacon and bearer of civic virtues. Machiavelli
conceived of his virtuas virtue of good citizenship that signifies citizens who are good members
of society, both in character and competence (integrity and excellence). Citizenship aims to
restore public trust, and restoring public trust is to rebuild virtuin the entire citizenry (the
German philosopher Friedrich Hegel advanced his concept of sittlichkeitwhich means the ideal
ethical order).
Since it is difficult for citizenship to flourish in low-trust society, it is the task also of citizenship to
build high-trust society where private and familial trust extend to other citizens (relational trust),
and organizations (organizational and market) and eventually to the entire society (including
governments and state agencies).
It is this extension of trust that an additional feature of citizenship is brought into the fore
contribution. Covey (2006) described the task of rebuilding trust as the citizens task of making
contribution and value creation through ethical behavior. Concrete contribution of citizenship is
discussed at length in the later portion. But as a matter of laying down the grounds, character
and competence are necessary but not enough; it is contribution that makes good citizenship.
But without character and competence, genuine contribution is also difficult to make.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
29/41
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
30/41
30
inhumanities; to be stateless in the contemporary world and therefore to be a permanent subject
of nowhere is to be diminished as a human being (Clark 1996:52).
While Clark recognized the necessity of passive citizenship, he found the problem of reducing
citizenship as mere status device. He thus espoused deep citizenship, or active citizenshipwhere citizens are able to practice and orient their status towards effective participation and
contribution to society. For Clark, the problems with citizenship go right to the historical and
philosophical foundations of that concept citizenship too often emasculates and enervates
rather than emancipates and energizes (Clark 1996:2); citizenship offers the opportunity to
participate in ones own life and in the creation and re-creation of the conditions within which
that life is acted out (Clark 1996:26). Active citizenship implies activity, practice, participation
and empowerment.
Passive citizenship is necessary but not enough; good citizenship is active citizenship that goes
beyond but not without status. Clark thus underscored the importance of the integratedness
of passive citizenship and active citizenship. Passive citizenship (status, rights and obligations)
is necessary for active citizenship (participation and contribution); it makes active citizenship
possible. There can be no active citizenship without passive citizenship. But because of
impediments (social, cultural, bureaucratic), passive citizenship is unable to flourish into active
citizenship; the two are inseparable (Clark 1996:44).
Clark (1996) likewise advanced two components of citizenship (individuality and mutuality) andthree levels of citizenship virtues (care of self, care of others and care for the world).
Individuality is the realization of the full potentials as a human being to fully become a citizen
and exercise citizenship. Mutuality is when the individual relates to other individuals in symbiotic
relationships (mutual benefit, mutual respect and mutual trust).
Care of self is living a moral life, thoughtfulness, refusal to obey immoral commands of state or
others, practice of conscientious objection (not acquiescent), high standards of personal
behavior, and striving for excellence in whatever one does (GreekArete). Care of others refers
to the aspects and manners of social interaction, civility, social concern and care (education,
health, welfare, social justice, as well as professional, management, workplace issues and
economic issues) that impact on people. Care for the world is the totality and effect of caring for
the self and others.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
31/41
31
Barbalet (1988) also propounded that the exercise or practice of citizenship contributes to the
public good (contribution). This is where Edwards (2004) is very useful when he laid down the
philosophical grounds for the emergence of civil society movements as citizenship through civic
engagement in public space [For Turner (1993), citizenship and civil society are intimately
intertwined]. Edwards identified three layers of public space: (1) civic engagement through
associational goals; (2) civic engagement by participating in the delivery of public good; and (3)
civic engagement by means of participating in public discourse.
Civic engagement through associational goals is citizenship establishing relational trust with
others beyond private trust and familial trust. Associational goals help to move from low-trust
societies to high-trust societies. Thus citizenship helps in building effective social capital;
creating accumulated benefits by virtue of peoples networks and connections with other people
and the stock of relationships, values and resources in association with others (Amorado 2007;Putnam 2000; Putzel 1997; Granovetter 1973, 1983). Zimicki (2000) also showed empirical
support how social capital is positively correlated with socially desirable outcomes like better
government, lower mortality, and less violence. And for Bjornskov (2004), corruption can be
lower or reduced as a cause of higher levels of honesty and trust that will conform to a given set
of desirable norms in society. He espoused that higher levels of social capital lead to lower
scale of corruption. Because of the basic elements of trust and honesty, social capital and good
connections and networks are in fact very effective in reducing mistrust and restoring public
trust.
But great caution must also be made. Social capital is also a very effective tool for kakistocracy,
betrayal of public trust and corruption. The connection between social capital and corruption has
been established in several studies on underground networks and illicit associations that hold
and bind their members (Amorado 2007; Milani 2003; Carrol 2001; Bertrand 2000; Della Porta
and Vannucci 1999; Henderson 1999; Rubio 1997; Ostrom 1997; Boissevain 1974). The
elements of trust and honesty have been replaced by fear, threat and conspiracy (Bjornskov
2004). This is the dark side of social capital in associational goals (Amorado 2007).
Good citizenship means developing good social capital and rejecting bad social capital, or
perverse social capital (Amorado 2007; Warren 2004; Rubio 1997; Putzel 1997; Ostrom 1997).
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
32/41
32
The civic engagement by participating in the delivery of public good explains the philanthropic
activities of charitable organizations and non-government organizations (NGOs) involved in
what Warren 2004 categorized as social good: relief services, poverty alleviation programs,
access to education, prosperity and economic development, infrastructure development,
livelihood enterprises, family cohesion, and social security among others.
The civic engagement by means of participating in public discourse supports those who are
engaged in public debate and dialog on social issues affecting the citizenry, influencing public
policy, and advocating for good governance and genuine democracy among others.
It is my proposition that good citizenship should inspire people to get involved in all the three
public space identified by Edwards (2004), most especially in public good and public discourse.
The people as good citizens can likewise orient and direct their associational goals towards
promoting good citizenship and restoring public trust. The challenge is to spark public inspiration
to counter widespread apathy and skepticism that breed mistrust and distrust.
The conception of citizenship taking a share of public space is a fidelity to its nature as a
countervailing power. Citizenship does not purely rely on and delegate to the state to work for
the interest of the citizens. Pure state is Machiavellis statecraft, the activity that separates the
people from the immediacy of involvement in the management of their shared affairs (Clark
1996:61). Everything is left to the state and government, thus limiting the conception and
practice of citizenship (Clark 1996:107).
To expand the space of citizenship as a countervailing power against statist dominance and
state abuses does not diminish but complement the state and government. This is the element
of contribution. Citizenship is conceived as a contribution to society, rather than a burden to it.
Citizens should be allowed to participate in taking care of their own welfare to be able to help
society rather than at the expense of society. This is what the German political scientist Hannah
Arendt called the space of appearance the area between people in which they exercise and
exhibit their individuality and mutuality (Clark 1996:108). This is supported by Malena (2009)
when she recognized that states and governments are not able to attain good governance and
thus, there is a need for civic groups and organized citizens to play an important role to achieve
good governance. She conceived of participatory governance as both a right and responsibility,
empowering citizens to influence and share control in processes of public decision-making that
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
33/41
33
affect their lives (Malena 2009:7). Malena importantly espoused that the people should start
taking action (political will) and not be impaired by incapacity and apathy (political wont).
Citing Berlins Four Essays on Liberty(1969), Rimmerman (2001) argued for the role of the
citizens in political democracy: (a) increased citizen participation will contribute both to thedevelopment of the individual and to the individuals realization of citizenship; and (b) that the
individuals should participate in community and workplace decisions that will affect the quality
and direction of their lives. Thus, participation and civic engagement are essential to the
democratic features of citizenship. Citizens participation in state affairs is central in democratic
participation. Rimmerman observed that a high level of public apathy is strongly manifested
among citizens who are indifferent, disinterested and disengaged. Apathy also makes citizens
paralyzed (unable to take action) or angry but cannot do anything. This is disenfranchised
citizenry as opposed to empowered citizenry.
Coplin (2007) presented a romanticist and egalitarian view of citizenship in resonance with Clark
(1996) and Malena (2009). In his Maxwell Manual for Good Citizenship, Coplin simply viewed
citizenship as being and doing good. He conceived of good citizenship as the acquisition of
skills and acuities of citizens in public policy (public discourse) to be able to participate and
contribute in societal development. Good citizenship means for the citizens to carve their place
in society and take actions to help others. Like Covey (2006), Coplin advanced the concept of
skills and character (intelligence and integrity) to improve personal capacity and enhance public
interest.
In pursuit of Coveys intelligence with integrity argument (competence with character) as the
foundation of contribution, good citizenship emerges as both normative (virtues and norms) and
technocratic (skills and capacities).
Normative citizenship espouses citizenship virtues, as Clark (1996) made of his care of self and
others and care for the world. In Cultural Foundations of Modern Citizenship, Kalberg also
identified four: civic responsibility, social trust, egalitarianism, and world-oriented individualism.
In his New Citizenship: Unconventional Politics, Activism and Service, Rimmerman (2001)
indentified several as civic virtues: civic engagement, political equality, solidarity, trust, tolerance
for diverse views and people, and encouragement of civic organizations and associations.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
34/41
34
Technocratic citizenship, or to the extent that citizenship is seen as developing skills and
competencies, Malena (2009:7) asserted that it is citizen empowerment and the promotion of
active citizenship, through rights awareness-raising, citizen education, mobilization, legal
reforms, introduction of mechanisms and platforms for citizen participation, [that] lie at the heart
of participatory governance. Coplin (2007) also offers very concrete citizenship skills to
develop: establish a work ethic (be honest, manage time, manage money); develop physical
skills (stay well, look good); communicate verbally (conversational skills); communicate in
writing; work directly with people; influence people; gather information; use quantitative tools;
ask and answer the right questions; and solve problems.
Both normative and technocratic citizenship equip and enable citizens to fully participate and
significantly contribute to society.
Good citizenship also implies developing critical thinking and conscientious irreverence.
Advertisement, propaganda, popularity of politicians and celebrities easily sway peoples
decisions, but they also promote blind trust. Clark (1996) advanced the idea of the capacity of
autonomy and independence in good citizenship. To be autonomous is to act for reasons of
ones own and to take responsibility for those actions. To act as a citizen, as that is widely
understood, is to use that independence in the public domain and orient it towards the common
good (Clark 1996:1).
This where Rimmerman (2001) spoofed about how citizens take responsibility. He coined
demonocracy (the demon in democracy) as a parody, borrowing from the Cartoonists and
Writers Syndicate. In demonocracy, (1) citizens choose what is really to blame (except
themselves); then (2) call a radio talk show or write to newspapers; then (3) denounce loudly;
then finally (4) go on with their day knowing they have done a bit. This is a disengaged (or
detached) citizenry as opposed to engaged citizenry. Good citizenship goes beyond that; good
citizenship takes part in the search and struggle with joy and sacrifice for the solutions to
societal problems.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
35/41
35
Building a citizenship-based country strategy
A citizenship-based country strategy is aimed at restoring public trust to reduce corruption and
betrayal of trust in all its forms and manifestations at all levels in society. As a countervailing
power, a good citizenship program can benefit countries like the Philippines which are struggling
to combat widespread corruption in the public and private sectors in the midst of pervasive
public cynicism and distrust.
Restoring public trust is mainly a function of the leaders or those in position of power on one
hand, and the citizenry on the other. The leaders and power-wielders need to be upright and
trustworthy. If they think and feel they do not enjoy public trust and respect, they are obliged to
relinquish their positions. If leaders are unable to lead and inspire, and they become the source
of public distrust and mistrust, statesmanship calls for their humble resignation from their
position. If the leaders continue to exercise influence by virtue of their fame and money rather
than respect and faith in their capacity this gives an indication of ill-repute and failure in
leadership. Combating political corruption is the first step in reforming leadership. On the other
hand, the citizenry needs to take proactive actions, engage the government and contribute to
society.
The citizenship-based country strategy works on this single dictum: turning citizens inactioninto
citizens in action.
Table-1 is a schematic table consolidating various frameworks of citizenship juxtaposed in the
notions of trust and integrity in pursuit of the country strategy.
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
36/41
36
Table-1: Citizenship-based country strategy: Citizens inaction to citizens in action
Dimensions Citizens inact ion Citizens in act ion
Objective Sulk in apathy and incapacity;breeds betrayal of public trust
Restore public trust
LeadershipOrientation
Kakistocracy Leadership ethosand arete:leadership by good example(character with competence)
Citizenry Acquiescent citizenry Conscientious citizenryGovernance State predominance and statist
orientation; statecraft: everythingleft to the government
Expand the space of citizenship:public space: associational, publicgood and public discourse
Demonocracy Genuine democracy: democracyin quantity and quality
Leadership andcitizenship traits
Character and competence(or lack of one or both)
Character, competence andcontribution
Organizationalorientation
BureaupathyBureausis (stress)
Bureaucracy: flexible, open,transparent, empowering,productive, has candor
Citizenshiporientation
Passive citizenship:citizenship as status device
Passive and active citizenship:citizenship as both status andemancipation
Status ascription: identity, rights,protection and obligation
Status plus activity, practice,contribution, participation,empowerment and responsibility
Participationorientation
Political wont Political will
Philosophicalorientation
French cit MachiavellisvirtuAristotles ethosGreek areteHegels sittlichkeit
Trust continuum Trust erodes Trust cumulatesLow trust to mistrust, distrust, lossof trust, blind trust, pretended trust(cordial hypocrisy)
Low trust to high trust; publicinspiration and civic engagement
Types of trust Low-trust society:
Private trust (Self trust)
Familial trust
Blind trust
Lack of trustLoss of trust
High-trust society:
Private trust (Self trust)
Familial trust
Relational trust
Organizational trust
Market trust Social trust (state and society)
Basic trustTransactional trust
Authentic trustTransformational trust(empowering trust)
Inadequate; derisory Capacity trustContractual trustCommunication trustCompetence trust
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
37/41
37
Dimensions Citizens inact ion Citizens in act ion
Trust principles(to be trustworthy)
Inadequate; derisory Credibility, consistency, alignment,reputation, contribution
Credibility Inadequate; derisory Integrity, intent, capabilities
and resultsIntegrity Inadequate; derisory Secular integrity
Moral integrityDis-integrity pull Integrity pull
Middle positionpredicament
NeutralityNon-alignmentDisinterested partySpectator syndromeSelf-preservation
Apathy
MediatorInvolved impartialityStakeholderNetworker/referrer
After strategy comes the contribution, the concrete actions by which the citizens as good
citizens can and should take on in the exercise of their citizenship virtues.
Figure-5: A proposed citizenship-based country strategy for the Philippines
Dis-integrity pull:
Betray public trust
Integrity pull:
Restore public trust
Dimensions:ObjectiveLeadership orientationCitizenryGovernanceLeadership and citizenship traitsOrganization orientationCitizenship orientationParticipation orientationTrust continuumTypes of trustTrust principlesIntegrityMiddle position predicament
Citizens inaction Citizens in action
-
8/9/2019 Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado
38/41
38
REFERENCES
Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1999. Corruption and the Destiny of Asia. Malaysia: Simon and Schuster (Asia) Pte Ltd. and Prentice-Hall (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Alderfer, C.P. 1979. Consulting to Underbou