Two recent occurrences, seemingly worlds apart, bear a common thread. The tragic fire at the school dormitory in Mahdia which led to the loss of 20 children, and the charges under the Espionage Act laid against former American president Donald Trump, have prompted the same question: wherein lies the extent of the moral and legal responsibility of government officials?
The subject of responsibility has been thoroughly examined by a multitude of philosophers over the last few centuries. Ironically, the initial usage of the word ‘responsibility’ was in a political context. In the etymology of ‘responsibility’ the Oxford English Dictionary cites the debates on the US Constitution – debates about representative government, that is, government which is responsible to the people – in the Federalist Papers (1787), and the Anglo-Irish political thinker Edmund Burke (1796). At the end of the nineteenth century, Max Weber, the German sociologist, propounded an ethics of responsibility for the politician. Weber deemed that the vocation of politics demands calm attention to the facts and the consequences of actions; not to lofty and abstract principles.
Whilst the application of the word responsibility in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was mainly in the political context, the emphasis of twentieth century philosophy has been the questions of free will and determinism. Is a person responsible for his/her actions? Would the truth of determinism eliminate such responsibility? Modern moral responsibility debate has spawned several attempts to demonstrate that responsible agency might be compatible with the causal order of the universe. While it is not the intention of this column to delve into a philosophical examination of the word responsibility, politicians are apt to resort to these various trains of thought to defend their actions, or lack thereof, in the execution of their responsibilities to their constituents.
It was very easy to pin the responsibility of the fire at Mahdia on the alleged actions of an upset student, who may or may not have fully understood the possible consequences of her actions. That aside, the question is, does the government’s bear moral and legal responsibility in this catastrophe? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Once the children are residents of the school they are in the care of the government, which is responsible for their well-being and safety. Government was the recipient of three reports which can be directly linked to the tragic circumstances. One commissioned by the Minister of Education on the state of dorms, and received a year ago, pointed out the lack of fire safety arrangements, and two warnings from the Guyana Fire Service in the previous six months that the grills in the dorms were a fire hazard, failed to initiate the necessary action which could averted the tragedy.
Three weeks have passed, no resignations have been tendered, and no one has been fired. Under the Westminster style of government it is the standard convention for the minister to bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions (or lack of action as in this instance) of his/her ministry by tendering his/her resignation. Obviously, that system of honour does not apply here. Apparently, no one in the government is going to be held accountable for this tragedy. It appears once again that the ‘wait-for-the-storm-to-blow-over’ philosophy is in effect.
In the face of the gravity of the charges facing Mr Trump, it is extremely difficult to understand the lack of moral and legal responsibility displayed by elected Republican officials who have opted to rally around him and regurgitate his excuse of a political witch hunt. Despite the overwhelming details presented in the 37 indictments against the former commander in chief, the first ever to be charged with violating the nation’s security under the Espionage Act, Republican Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and second in the line of presidential succession, tweeted, “Today is indeed a dark day for the United States of America… I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump against this grave injustice.” The Speaker’s broadcast to the world that the prosecution of Mr Trump is a purely political act is a serious allegation and brings into focus another irresponsible action of a very senior government official.
Holders of high government office, wherever they are, must accept the fact that they are first and foremost representatives of the people, and their positions come with an inherent moral and legal responsibility to serve the best interests of the country and its citizens. Unfortunately, Weber’s ethics for politicians is just wishful thinking in today’s world. The modern politician’s interpretation of the word responsible appears to be: `to do everything I must to retain my position of power’. It is also clear that they follow the mantra: ‘I am beholden only to the party and myself. I will claim the credit for anything good which occurs on my watch. I will not be responsible or held accountable to anyone, or for anything that goes wrong’. We are living in very perilous times.
