Can a political elite hold itself accountable? Left to its
own devices, absent a virtuous citizenry, a political elite is able to exploit
a conflict of interest in both wielding the authority of government and using
that power even to constrain the elite itself. Unfortunately, even where an
electorate is virtuous, the dispersed condition of the popular sovereign is an
impediment to galvanizing enough popular will to act as a counter-power to that
of a political elite, which is relatively concentrated and well-informed. In
early 2017, the problem was on full display in the E.U. state of France, with
little the federal government could do given the amount of governmental
sovereignty still residing at the state level. So the question is whether an
electorate can galvanize enough power to counter that of a political elite.
François Fillon in trouble for corruption (Christian Hartmann/Reuters)
Just months before the election, France’s leading
presidential candidate was “in deep trouble” for payments of nearly €831, 440 “from
the public payroll to his wife and children” over the 30 years in which François Fillon employed them.[1]
Penelope Fillon “was paid with taxpayer money for a bogus job as a
parliamentary assistant to her husband and his deputy” in the state Assembly.[2]
Because her husband had “fashioned himself as a stern and honest politician,”
the sordid odor of hypocrisy was in the air, yet the practice itself, which was
legal at the time, was to “many French politicians” no “big deal.”[3]
So from the press and the public came “a wellspring of anger” calling into
question the standard operating procedures of the political class.”[4]
In short, the response was: “They just don’t get it.”[5]
C’est vraiment incroyable. Really
incredible.
A political class cannot police itself if its culture is so ensconced
in the misuse of funds, even if legal, that the ubiquitous practice is not even
recognized as being unethical in nature. On an organizational scale, I have
witnessed a university’s culture so dysfunctional—with such passive aggression
from the non-academic staff—that the offending creatures would not even recognize
themselves in the mirror; even to question them would be perceived as a
provocation. Accountability is impossible in such a sordid organization. So,
too, a political class with an ingrown sense of presumptuous entitlement cannot
possibly hold itself accountable. A perception of wrong-doing is requisite to
holding oneself accountable. The decisive question is therefore whether a “wellspring
of anger” in a public-at-large can be sufficient to “throw the bastards out.”
Even if a sizable proportion of an electorate votes to “throw
the bums out,” other rationales for voting doubtless exist and can dilute the
effect such that the culture of the political class can survive. Furthermore, even
intense anger today can quickly dissipate, such that the results of an election
even just months away show little sign of the earlier sizzling headlines. Even
major protests do not necessarily translate into the ballot box. At the time Fillon
was facing a harsh reaction in France, more than 250,000 irate people in the
state of Romania were protesting after Liviu Dragnea’s governing Social
Democratic Party passed a law on January 31, 2017 making “official misconduct
punishable by prison time only in cases in which the financial damage is more
than 200,000 lei, or about $47,000”—Dragnea himself facing “charges of abouse
of power involving a sum” less than 200,000 lei.[6]
Here we can see the conflict of interest on full display: Dragnea was using the
power of his party in the state legislature such that he would essentially be
above the (constraint of) law. Yet even such a blatant case cannot be expected
to be punished when the next election comes around. Something more is needed to
address the inherent conflict of interest.
1. Adam Nossiter, “Fillon
Scandal Indicts, Foremost, France’s Political Elite,” The New York Times, February 3, 2017; Aurelien Breeden, “Graft
Allegations Grow Against Francois Fillon, French Presidential Hopeful,” The New York Times, February 1, 2017.
