86. Integrity is responding well to accusations of wrongdoing
It is a misconception that SPs do not need to respond to accusations because the burden of proof lies with the accuser. If SPs really care about integrity, they will want to refute accusations actively, even if it is difficult to disprove inappropriate behavior. SPs can respond with integrity to concrete accusations by (1) broadening the problem, (2) requesting a vote of confidence, (3) being open, (4) investigating, (5) repairing or compensating for the damage, and (6) apologizing and showing regret.
There is more to be said about how to deal appropriately with accusations. One of the many common fallacies is based on the maxim that you are innocent until proven guilty. The danger here is that people think that the burden of proof rests on those who make accusations. This principle may apply to citizens – whoever points the finger should produce evidence – but that does not change the fact that an SP’s reputation can be badly damaged by waiting for others to find proof. This puts you at the mercy of what others say and do, creating an image of passivity, indifference, or even of having something to hide. Even if you have the legal right not to incriminate yourself, openness, commitment, and proactivity are desirable for showing integrity. One party leader stated that members of parliament have a moral duty to clear their names.485 Those involved often expect this of SPs and criticize and condemn those who fail to do so, praising those who do. This expectation is generally fed by the assumption that even if the accusations were wrongful, the SP must have done something to arouse suspicion (no smoke without fire). So it is best to be cooperative in dismissing accusations, or better still to work actively to ensure that they are refuted. If SPs take their integrity and the integrity of their positions to heart, they will not tolerate their damage and defilement, and will want to actively refute accusations. Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdoğan failed to follow this principle in his response to big protests by the people against his dictatorship, as he stated, “If they call someone who has served the people a dictator, I have nothing more to say.”486
At the same time proving behavior lacking in integrity is awkward. After all, it is often a question of (1) a complex range of facts, observations, and images, (2) evidence that is difficult or impossible to obtain, (3) standards that are context-dependent and ambiguous, and (4) serious interests at stake that mean the situation is colored, distorted, and manipulated. It is even more difficult to prove that inappropriate behavior has not taken place. In chapter 64 we saw that it is more difficult to illustrate the absence of a quality than its presence.487 For example, it is more difficult to show that people have not committed transgressions than to show that they have. Moreover the absence of a transgression in general is more difficult to demonstrate than the absence of a transgression in a specific situation. For example you can show that you did not break a specific rule at a specific time by witnesses proving that you were doing something else at the time, rendering the violation impossible, but showing that you have never broken a particular rule is difficult if not impossible, because it involves excluding many behaviors that cannot be easily reconstructed.
Just because it is impossible to prove your innocence, does not mean that nothing can be done to prevent an image of dishonesty, fraud, or corruption. You could argue that the opposite of the accusation can never be proven and that it is unfair to ask the impossible. You can also request that the accuser give concrete examples, providing the possibility of refutation (and the hope that no concrete examples will be found). An alternative reaction is a direct, firm denial that anything of the accusation is true, or an assertion that you have always complied with the associated rule or standard. You can also respond by indicating a willingness to be completely open and to cooperate towards concrete information (setting the ball in the court of the accuser in a responsible way).
If the