{"id":8258,"date":"2020-02-13T11:00:01","date_gmt":"2020-02-13T09:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/home\/?p=8258"},"modified":"2020-02-20T15:33:49","modified_gmt":"2020-02-20T13:33:49","slug":"public-deontology-from-principles-to-practices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sciencespo.fr\/research\/cogito\/home\/public-deontology-from-principles-to-practices\/?lang=en","title":{"rendered":"Public Deontology: From Principles to Practices"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"<\/a>The growing demand for deontology is affecting an increasing number of professions and missions, from politicians, civil servants and medical professions to journalists and scientists. There are multiple suggestions for how to meet this challenge: declarations of interest, transparency in decision-making, liaisons within organisations, and specialized institutions.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the question has not been settled. How far should one go? What principles should be affiliated? How to implement them?\u00a0 Guillaume Tusseau<\/a>, university professor at the Law School, suggests some answers, based on a work he recently directed: \u201cLa d\u00e9ontologie publique, trajectoire et pr\u00e9sence d\u2019une notion ambigu\u00eb<\/a>\u201d (Public Deontology, trajectory and Presence of an Ambiguous Notion). Interview.<\/p>\n

The purpose of this work is to clarify what is included in the notion of public deontology, both in theory and in practice. Why did you feel this investigation was necessary?<\/h5>\n
\"Portrait

Portrait de Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). \u00a9 National Portrait Gallery<\/p><\/div>\n

Guillaume Tusseau : I have been working on the subject for a long time with members of a multidisciplinary research centre devoted to the work of Jeremy Bentham. It was in fact the latter, an 18th and 19th century English philosopher and jurist, who invented the term and the concept \u2013 not the same \u2013 of deontology.\u00a0 For fifteen years we had witnessed the emergence of this issue in Western democracies. With respect to France, there was first a commission created in 2010 on \u201creflections about preventing conflicts of interest in public life\u2019\u2019. Its report \u2013 \u201cPour une nouvelle d\u00e9ontologie de la vie publique\u201d<\/i> \u2013 led to a draft bill that was never included on the agenda in parliament. Even so, its work resulted in the first ethics charter for administrative jurisdiction. In 2012 \u2013 the year of the Cahuzac scandal \u2013 a new commission was created \u201con renovation and deontology of public life\u201d which led to the establishment of the Haute Autorit\u00e9 pour la transparence de la vie publique (High Authority for Transparency in Public Life). It was a milestone in public life, and also for researchers because it allowed us to present our theoretical, philosophical, historical and legal reflections on deontology by directly connecting them to ongoing practices.<\/p>\n

What was Jeremy Bentham referring to with this term?<\/h5>\n

G.T. : Bentham defined deontology as the science of duty (in ancient Greek, deon<\/i> meant \u2018\u2018it behooves, it is fitting\u2019\u2019). He devoted some of his last works to it, published posthumously under the name \u201cDeontology or the Science of Morality<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0 In his mind, the first duty was to not harm others (including animals), and this applied to all levels. It began with a duty to oneself, to one\u2019s inner circle, and expanded in concentric circles to duties in the public sphere.<\/p>\n

He also thought about how it could be implemented…<\/h5>\n
\"Plan

Plan of the Panopticon. \u00a9 Domaine public<\/p><\/div>\n

G.T. : Yes. Indeed, he positioned himself in what is known as the science of institution engineering. To make sure deontology was effective, he called upon the principles of injunction, interest and duty. He thought up a set of incentive structures. On the level of public deontology, he proposed in particular civil service examinations. But above all he returned to his idea of the panopticon \u2013 which he had developed for prisons \u2013 with the aim of organising ministerial offices. Potential offenders (ministers and civil servants) would be placed in the centre of a building which the public could walk around while observing them. The idea was to bring public officers\u2019 interests in line with their duties, motivating them through a system of material and symbolic incentives to carry out those duties for the benefit of the population. On the private level, Bentham was reflecting on what he called \u201cindirect\u201d legislation, which covered structures quite similar to nudges. This technique is quite fashionable nowadays, proposing to subtly influence our behavior in our own interests. Among other things, our project French Nudges<\/a> explores the manuscripts he devoted to the subject.<\/p>\n

Can any limits be placed on the conditions of deontology? Isn\u2019t it going too far when, like in Sweden, a minister is asked to resign because she bought a chocolate bar with her ministerial credit card?<\/h5>\n

G.T. : Bentham would certainly have taken a consequentialist approach to that subject, namely that misconduct should be punished in proportion to the consequences. But in the same vein, things can go quite far if you follow the \u2018\u2018once a thief, always a thief\u2019\u2019 adage, which has been used to justify \u201czero tolerance\u201d penal policies. The exemplary aspect is also important. For example, if a civil servant embezzles money without facing charges, the temptation to imitate them is potentially greater. In fact, the core of the current dynamic seems to be based on developing what could be called a \u201cdeontological reflex\u201d. I experienced this as a member of the Judicial Council, whose mission is to ensure the deontology of judges. Rather than being coercive, its approach is to encourage judges to reflect on their own professional practices and conduct from the point of view of the values expressed in their oath of office. Judges may ask themselves all kinds of questions, from the simplest to the most complex: can I write a detective novel that might give ideas to criminals? Can I be involved in political and community affairs like any other citizen? Can I give evidence about an accident I witnessed, knowing that my testimony could have more influence on the judge who will ultimately handle the case? etc. To answer these kinds of questions, the Judicial Council has set up a support and ethics monitoring department, a sort of \u2018\u2018toll-free number\u2019\u2019 that judges may contact by phone or email to find assistance in answering such questions.Furthermore, the Judicial Council updated the handbook for the ethical obligations of judges with practical information sheets based on different cases that have arisen: family issues, new technologies, etc.<\/p>\n

\"\u00a9<\/a>

\u00a9 Conseil sup\u00e9rieur de la magistrature<\/p><\/div>\n

What about other areas of civil service?<\/h5>\n

G.T. : Every professional practice may require some adaptations. But there are requirements that seem general, notably concerning overlaps between public policy objectives and private life, which raises the issue of conflicts of interest. More generally, in civil service law, private conduct may have repercussions on one\u2019s professional situation. For instance, if a policeman is found guilty of domestic violence he will naturally be punished under criminal law, but he is also liable to disciplinary action within the force. This principle regarding independence of criminal and disciplinary punishment is based in particular on protecting the dignity of office and the image of institutions. This is a fundamental point.<\/p>\n

Aside from the matter of judges, can we consider public deontology to be progressing?<\/h5>\n

G.T. : Absolutely. But there is still a great deal of room for improvement before the deontological reflex and a culture of deontology are firmly established. Some sceptics have observed that deontology proceeds in fits and starts in reaction to scandals.<\/p>\n

\"French<\/a>

\u00a9 French High Authority for transparency in public (web, logo)<\/p><\/div>\n

However, one should also keep in mind that the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life<\/a> has \u2018\u2018taken hold\u2019\u2019 in the institutional landscape, and its mission has become broader, in particular through its very recent takeover of the “Commission de d\u00e9ontologie de la fonction publique” (Public Service Ethics Commission) and by setting up an interest representative register. Bordering on theory and practice, a Monitor of Public Ethics has been created which is an important inducement in this regard. But there is also resistance, and there are limits. In France, for example, it was very hard to ask elected officials to state their income and wealth openly, while it has long been an accepted practice in many other countries. A real cultural shift has got to take place.<\/p>\n

Can this progress help to restore trust between public opinion and politicians?<\/h5>\n

G.T. : It\u2019s not that simple. The media has played a big part here. Investigative journalism is often decisive in uncovering (\u2018\u2018mettre au jour\u2019\u2019 rather than \u2018\u2018mettre \u00e0 jour\u2019\u2019 ?) deontological transgressions. But the media\u2019s impact may be disappointing when sensationalism drives it to highlight scandals rather than bring to light improvments. Fran\u00e7ois de Rugy is a case in point. Paradoxically, Fran\u00e7ois de Rugy was very involved in public ethics issues while president of the National Assembly. During the \u2018\u2018lobster affair\u2019\u2019, some media mentioned this fact, but naturally in a limited, ironic way since it was a relatively technical subject, without reporting on the contributions he made in this area that will live on after him. Nevertheless, we may expect this scandal to enable advances which can be partly credited to the \u2018\u2018noise\u2019\u2019 generated by the media. From this standpoint, as Bentham recommended, we must pay attention to the consequences that ensue from the point of view of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.<\/p>\n

Interview by H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Naudet, Vice Presidency for research
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Guillaume Tusseau<\/a> is a Professor of public law at Sciences Po. He is at the same time a specialist in constitutional law, and in particular in comparative constitutional litigation, and a theoretician of law, more particularly of the analytical theory of the law and of the works of Jeremy Bentham<\/a>.<\/pre>\n
More information (in French)
\n<\/b><\/p>\n