Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Policy Ethics (W2.
MJ) Question 1 According to Dobel, certain sleazes in the public office may frustrate the dedication and competence of civil servants. Firstly, the connection of private and public lives of the individuals subject immense pressure on the efficiency of their tasks. The public requires the members of the civil service to be responsible both inside and outside their offices. This mainly involves politicians such as governors, senators and members of the cabinet. In the course of the substantial apathy, in the society, people formulate and change their definition of an ideal governance system and customs.
However, these actions may have a negative impact on the officers’ efficiency. Any action or decision they make opens them up to appreciation and criticism from the citizens. Dobel acknowledges the moral difficulties involved in public service. Consequently, he recommends the analysis of public integrity as a complex affair that depends on the environment, as opposed to approaching it as an authorization to officers.
He attributes this theory to the complexity of human nature and the society along with the differences between ethical and political principles. Moreover, moral and individual reliability challenges affect the competence of public officers hence the difficulty of upholding public integrity. By use of creative writing and comedy in chapter 3 of his book, Dobel illustrates the ethical predicaments that threaten the integrity of the public sector, especially the politicians. For example, he analyses a case of a politician tempted to attain more power and the implications it may have on his integrity and entire profession. This veracity snare puts the politician in a social and psychological dilemma. From his arguments, it is evident that ample authority challenges one’s integrity and its continuation may undermine civil servants’ dedication to their work. Question 2 Dobel addresses public integrity as a component of personal values and social requirements. However, the society hardly appreciates truthfulness of those in the public service because of the distrust element comprised in a democratic system of government.
This challenges their competence because of the variance in efficient diplomacy and accountability of these officers. Although the level of these values depends on the rank of the official, the society uses the same tool of evaluation. For example, a senator may leave out some information on utilization of public funds for security reasons. However, the public will view this action as the lack of integrity. Moreover, this author addresses various models appropriate for the resolution of differences between social equality and public prudence. One such model is the Legal Institutional Model. This structure highlights civil servants’ obedience to administrative power as required by the public.
On the other hand, the Personal Responsibility Model stresses the need to integrate individual accountability in the decision making process of public-related matters. Likewise, the Implementation Model addresses the advantage of diplomacy in the civil service and the need to incorporate power in such environments as an efficiency tool. Each model puts emphasis on one principle as the most appropriate one in aspects of public integrity. However, he argues that they all add up to a general model of public responsibility and dedication.
This is because the community relies on the decisions made by these personnel in order to conduct their life in an efficient manner. The policies made by civil servants determine the development rate of the society, hence the need to incorporate public accountability and commitment in these offices.