Whistleblowing: courage or treachery?
by Simon Longstaff
It is sometimes suggested that there is a conflict between loyalty and honesty. Looked at in one type of light this would seem to be true. It is suggested that 'loyalty' based on a preference for self-serving dishonest behaviour is a pale imitation of the real thing; a soiled brand.
Loyalty depends on a capacity to trust one another. Trust cannot be founded on the shifting sand of lies and dishonest behaviour. Beyond this, we have an intuitive sense that loyalty is something owed to a deserving object. Even where loyalty is thought to be owed to an office (such as a commander-in-chief of the armed forces), provision is made for circumstances where the individual holding that office is corrupt. The power of impeachment represents a recognition of the fact that an office can be demeaned by its holder.
Loyalty often demands the exercise of courage. Such courage may need to be manifested in the form of moral courage. In turn this may involve a decision to promote honesty as a true test of loyalty to those who deserve its application. When people uncover and report wrongdoing because of a genuine concern to protect or promote the public interest then they are said to have ‘blown the whistle’. As a rule they have nothing to gain by their actions. In some cases their lives are ruined as people hit back.
It's important to realise that whistleblowing does not have to be part of a scheme of retribution against miscreants. Ideally, it should be seen as part of a diagnostic process at work within an organisation. Whistleblowing is as much about society, in its various forms, protecting itself from avoidable harm. It is also one part of a chain of actions that may lead dishonest or misguided individuals to recognise the harm that they do to others and ultimately to themselves.
The chief point to be realised in all of this is that the phenomenon of whistleblowing is representative of peoples' reaction to complex social problems that require equally complex and integrated responses. The type of response to be made will be guided by policies and attitudes concerning the relative seriousness of different forms of wrongdoing. A general climate of opinion is likely to affect the tenor of specific responses. Hence, it is important that clear standards be established to govern the appropriate response to reports of wrongdoing. Whilst there can be no guarantees in such matters, it is likely that schemes for the protection of whistleblowers will be enhanced if seen as being part of a wider concern that looks to the welfare of all involved.
There is no denying that whistleblowers face a dilemma in determining whether or not to draw attention to matters which so trouble their consciences that they feel bound to expose themselves and others to censure. From one point of view whistleblowing might be regarded as evidence of failure. On such an account the finger of blame could point in many directions: at organisations which have tolerated intolerable behavious: at individuals who have put private advantage above the interests of all others, to whole groups of people whose custom and practice have left them blind to corruption and to others who, through apathy, fear, prudence or whatever have failed to accept responsibility for saying no to harmful attitudes and behaviour.
Yet, at another level, whistleblowing may be seen as a triumph of unsettling proportions. It is, perhaps, a little startling to see people willing to risk opprobrium by following the dictates of their consciences. It is even more unsettling to realise that they are motivated by values to which we subscribe, albeit in private.
The challenge is to erect structures that allow light to penetrate the veil of corruption. Such a structure needs to be built out of existing resources such as: the common law, various codes affecting the professions, the media and so on. However, the foundation will have to be a general feeling, within the community, that various corrupt practices must be stopped because they are wrong.
People are starting to realise that unethical behaviour causes harm not only at the level of the hip-pocket nerve. They are also coming to see that a corrupt society is harmed in less obvious but nonetheless tangible respects. All of this may lead to a growing sense that integrity should be 'rewarded' with something other and better than a ruined life
discuss this articleDr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
This article was first published in City Ethics (now Living Ethics), issue 7, 1992
© St James Ethics Centre