Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado

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.


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


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


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,


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,


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).


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


8/41

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.


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)


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.


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).


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).


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


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.


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


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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





Systems integrity

Sexual integrityCultural integrityPolitical integrity


Low-Trust High-TrustBetrayal of trust

Mistrust

Distrust

Loss of trust

Blind trust

Pretended trust

(Cordial hypocrisy)


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.


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





Systems integritySexual integrityCultural integrityPolitical 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


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.


29/41


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.


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).


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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

Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado

Documents

Transcript of Inculcating Integrity - Impediments and Challenges by Amorado