The Nolan Principles

In one of my recent social media feeds was an article on the Nolan Principles. They are also called the Seven Principles of Public Life. I found the principles very interesting when reading them in the context of today's current political climate.

The point of the article was to question if people who worked in our public institutions, including members of parliament, councillors and public servants across our various levels of government, the judiciary, protective services, and those working in the public sector would meet this set of ethical standards if it was to apply to them.

My initial response when reading through the seven principles was that the bar set by the Nolan Principles seems a little too high for these institutions. Or at least when they are applied against the backdrop of some current high-profile negative news. I am not saying that the bar set by the principles should not be there, but when looking at the behaviour of politicians, the number of corruption cases before the courts, the mismanagement of public funds and the scandalous behaviour of people in high places makes me wonder if these are all a reflection of our society today. Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1922-1999), founding president of Tanzania was quoted as saying, "A society without moral compass is a society adrift."

Background of the Nolan Principles.

The Nolan Principles were developed in 1995 by a committee chaired by its namesake Michael Patrick Nolan. Baron Nolan as he was known as, was a judge and an appointee to the Privy Council (a sovereign advisory body) in the United Kingdom. From 1994 until 1997 Nolan was the first chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The seven principles which the committee arrived at arose from the "cash for questions" scandal in 1994 within the UK Government. There was mounting public distrust with the government which prompted the then Prime Minister John Major to establish the Nolan Committee to conduct an inquiry. This resulted in the tabling of the Parliamentary Findings in 1996, leading to the reform in parliamentary ethics brought about by the Nolan Committee's Seven Principles of Public Life.

Parliament of the United Kingdom (Source: Unsplash)

The Seven Principles.

Listed below are the seven principles arrived at by the Nolan Committee. These have been extracted from the UK government website:

1.Selflessness.

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

2.Integrity.

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

3.Objectivity. Holders of public office must act and take decision impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

4.Accountability.

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

5.Openness.

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

6.Honesty.

Holders of public office should be truthful.

7.Leadership.

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

Although originally developed for public officials in the United Kingdom, the Nolan Principles are widely used as a framework for ethical leadership. While formally embedded in United Kingdom's public service, these principles are not officially adopted globally. They have however, influenced public ethics frameworks in many countries. Scotland, in the UK, has not only adopted the original seven principles but has also added - Duty and Respect - in codes governing councillors and its public institutions.

Widespread Application of the Nolan Principles.

In Australia, parliamentary committees and integrity bodies have referred to the principles as a useful ethical framework. Some local councils, public agencies, universities, and professional organisations have gone a little further by adapting or citing them.

Australian Parliament House in Canberra (Source: Unsplash)

Other countries have similar public service values, while not necessarily adopting the Nolan Principles per se. These countries include:

• Canada, where it has a Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. It's issued by the Treasury Board. Its purpose is to strengthen the ethical cultures of the public sector and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the public institutions.

• United States has a strong set of Standards of Ethical Conduct for Federal Employees of the Executive Branch. It has 14 general principles all serving to maintain public trust in the public service.

• Singapore has its Singapore Public Service framework with its core values of integrity, service to the nation, and excellence. This framework guides the standards of behaviour and reflects the identity and culture of the service.

• Nordic countries have had long-standing traditions of openness, impartiality, and accountability. For example, Norway has its Ethical Guidelines for the Public Service.
  

It is interesting to note that the Nolan Principles are not laws in themselves, but ethical principles intended to guide conduct and shape organisational culture. Their influence has extended beyond government and has been applied to and in:

• Charities

• Churches and religious organisations

• Schools and universities

• Healthcare organisations

• Nonprofits and boards, and

• Corporate governance.

Shortfall of the Nolan Principles as Viewed by its Critics

Whilst the Nolan Principles are widely respected, they have attracted a level criticism from some academics, public administrators, and ethics scholars. Most critics do not reject the principles themselves; rather, they question whether the principles are sufficient or effective on the own in today’s business environment.

1.Lack of enforceability.

The fact that the Nolan Principles are ethical standards and not laws mean that they are not enforceable. Critics cite a few cases, for example:

• The principles cannot stop a person with a conflict of interest from voting on a decision that benefits them.

• The principles cannot prevent money collected from levies flowing to companies connected to board members.

• Violations of the principles may not carry legal consequences.

Some critics say that ethical principles without meaningful sanctions can become symbolic rather than transformative. I would argue that even if they are considered symbolic, there are indeed worthy and aspirational. Yes, the principles are broad and non-partisan, however they could serve as a universal framework for ethical leadership, much as the Ten Commandments have historically influenced legal and moral traditions.

2.Need for governance.

Another common criticism is that the principles are very general with almost everyone agreeing to them. While the Committee on Standards in Public Life delivered what it was asked for, as it describes what holders in such public roles are expected to display e.g. integrity, openness, honesty, etc., critics emphasize that the important missing piece in any organisation is good governance. This, they argue carries more weight when enforcing these principles and behaviours. It is said that you cannot audit good character, but you can audit structure. Because the Nolan Principles focus on the individual, some ethics scholars argue that the root cause of corruption and misconduct are often poor institutional design and weak oversight, which is where robust governance structures are important.

3.Inherited cultural tradition.

Another area of criticism has been the cultural tradition of the times in which the Nolan Principles were developed i.e. it emerged from the British tradition of public service and civic duty and created in the 1990s. While it may have some bearing on countries influenced historical by British civic institutions, the principles may not have universal appeal elsewhere. Putting aside how and where the Nolan Principles originated from, it would be fair to argue the case that these principles are true in any case, and ought to be followed otherwise it would be hard to trust public institutions to be fair and equitable. There are examples of countries where the state of their public institutions is not well regarded due to widespread or at least tacit disapproval of graft and corruption.

4.Missing leadership virtues.

Ethics scholars who are critical of the principles comment that the existing leadership values are limited. While exhibiting and supporting the Nolan Principles, showing respect and challenging poor behaviours are positive values. Other virtues like; wisdom, courage, compassion, humility and justice, they say are missing.

A Use Case Application of the Nolan Principle.

The social media feed I received spoke of a current member of parliament in Western Australia who "lived by the Nolan Principles". Her name is Maryka Groenewald MLC (WA Legislative Council).

The article by Peter Lyndon-James stated in part, "You can disagree with every policy she holds. That's politics. But the Noland Principles aren't about whether you like someone's views, they're about how they conduct themselves in office. Honesty. Transparently. Accountably. By that measure, she's an example."

"Imagine an Australian Parliament where every member, left, right, every party was held to the Nolan Standard. Where transparency was the default, not the exception. We don't need to imagine the model. We have working examples. We just need more politicians willing to follow them. That's a standard worth demanding. From all of them."

Conclusion.

Despite the shortfalls identified with the Nolan Principles supporters having contested many of the arguments, have also added that the Nolan Principles were never intended to be a complete philosophy of leadership virtues. They were set out with the modest aim of establishing a common ethical framework and foundation for public life. In a sense the Nolan Principles function as a starting point of outward standards for public conduct, rather than a complete model of leadership for the public service.

The use case of politician Maryka Groenewald MLC is a perfect example of the merit of what the Noland framework can achieve, despite its perceived shortcomings.

Romanian-born American Joseph M. Juran (1904-2008), engineer, management consultant and author, said. "Without a standard there is no logical basis for making a decision or taking action".

What score would you give based on the Nolan Principles?

A Rhetorical Question for You.

Here's a rhetorical question for you, "If you were to apply the Nolan Principles to your local parliamentarian or your country's government today, what score from "0" to "10" would you give it, where "10" is the highest alignment to the Seven Principles of Public Life and "0" is lowest where it does not rate at all. [You don't need to share your answer.]