The Position of Ethics in Reform

(Photo: Ivana Vuksa)

Recent months have seen huge flows of refugees looking for a stable environment for their children. They don't go east or south, or stop on the way in Serbia, but flock towards Germany and north-west Europe.

Why precisely there? We all know the answer, ordinary people - if not politicians - are in no doubt. They are looking for a 'normal' country and by that they mean a democratic country with a market economy and institutions that assure the rule of law; one with low levels of corruption and value for money in public services offering the best conditions for business, high salaries and stable state revenues that ensure good education and health care for all.

A society with clear, fair rules that people follow not just from fear of punishment but because they fundamentally agree with them. An ethical society. The question for reformers here is: how can Serbia achieve this?

NALED has proposed reforms ranging from simpler, lower taxes and de-regulation through better inspection to combating corruption. Some have been implemented. One major success is the new online issue of building permits that will increase efficiency and, if properly used, remove a prime corruption impediment to honest business.

This is a good example of how efficiency and combating corruption go hand in hand. Ending corruption is a condition for reform to be effective, but we have so often seen how the unscrupulous can squirm around just about any formal barrier to graft. Clearly, statutory barriers alone will not work.

What is needed is a change in ethical culture. But the culture of an organisation is not changed by just re-designing procedures, as any change management consultant can tell you. In the state as in the corporation, corruption will continue as long as the national culture accepts it as inevitable. How can this be changed?

The first condition for organisational culture change is absolute and visible commitment from top management. Early nineteenth-century Denmark was rife with corruption until the king took a clear position: he gave life sentences for embezzlement, even to his close friends, and he published the fact nationwide. Corruption stopped and never returned, as his ethical stance became embedded in the national culture. Only when the king's level takes a committed and visible stand, together with the transparency that can prove it is not hypocrisy, will the ethical culture change. Until then it will not.

Of course, there must be robust laws and policies, but for these to be effective, they must be persistently and visibly implemented. Public awareness is a critical measure so often overlooked - the king's commitment must be backed up by strong awareness campaigns.

When these conditions are fulfilled, an ethical culture change can take place over time, perhaps a decade or two. In this process, civil society organisations will play a crucial role in maintaining public awareness in the domains of their specialities, providing proposals for regulation and de-regulation. Of course, a free press has a central position, especially if it can spend less time quoting and more time investigating.

As a unique CSO that gathers both public and private sectors, NALED has a special role as a forum for inter-sector discussion and proposals.

But the basic conditions must be right. Then perhaps we will see some of those refugees stopping on the way – that would be a real indicator of success: Serbia as a place people struggle to settle in.

The author, David Lythgoe, is Chairman of NALED's Ethics Committee and manager at Halifax Consulting