87. Integrity is revealed by the magnitude of punishment for wrongdoing
The sanctions SPs apply to wrongdoing reveal the value they attach to integrity. The harsher the punishment, the greater the weight attributed to the value that has been violated or the standard transgressed. However, SPs can fail to sanction wrongdoing because (1) the transgressor has immunity, (2) the SPs who should apply punishment are also guilty of inappropriate behavior, (3) the consequences of sanctioning are greater than those of the transgression or would not be sufficient, and (4) there is too much reverence for the transgressor. SPs should avoid allowing their integrity to be damaged by a failure to sanction wrongdoing.
However energetically indications of transgressions are confronted and investigated, SPs stand or fall by the consequences attached to them. Beyond simply acting in agreement with the findings and conclusions of an investigation, integrity entails sanctioning any violations discovered. After all, the punishment reveals the value you attach to integrity. The harsher the punishment, the greater the weight attributed to the value or standard transgressed. Tolerating violations indicates that integrity is not a priority.
However, adequately sanctioning wrongdoing is easier said than done. There are at least four important factors that inhibit proper sanctions and may damage the integrity of those who should deliver punishment.
Firstly, as indicated in chapter 79, there are SP positions that confer immunity. In democratic countries politicians generally cannot be dismissed, so the only way to get them out of their position is for party administration not to put them on the election list, not to place them in an electable position, and not to vote for them, as party members or voters, in new elections. Democratic principles are placed above constitutional principles. Democratic representatives may well come under pressure from their parties to resign after inappropriate behavior, but in many countries they have the formal right to remain in their jobs. Political administrators can be forced to give up their positions due to violations of integrity in the interim. However, this is not so much due to a lack of integrity in itself, but rather to damaged confidence. For this a majority of the supervisory body must support a motion of no confidence or censure, but even then a political administrator can ignore this and remain in office due to a lack of formal obligation to step down.
Secondly, adequate punishment can be hampered if those who should be applying sanctions are guilty of inappropriate behavior. Applying double standards in itself implies a lack of integrity. Those who should be sanctioned can exploit this, pointing to double standards, or even using it as a means of blackmail. Double standards are also an issue if the same behavior has been tolerated in the past or elsewhere, as there is a risk of accusations of randomness and class justice. If those applying sanctions run the risk of being confronted about their own integrity, this can be a reason for failing to apply sanctions properly.
Thirdly, people can be conservative in punishment because the possible consequences are greater than those of the transgression itself. Bringing a motion of no confidence against a minister can lead to the entire government having to resign. Ford chose not to punish Nixon in part because putting an ex-president in prison would damage confidence in the presidency itself. Punishment may also be withheld for opportunistic reasons. A parliament may allow ministers to stay in power so that they commit further errors, further damaging their own reputations and those of their parties (allowing them to hang themselves).
Fourthly, punishment may be withheld out of reverence. Sanctions can have fundamental, even traumatic consequences for those receiving them. In order to spare them this, it can be decided to give them a second chance. A member of parliament lost his position as spokesman because he had kept quiet about the fact that he had a past criminal conviction, but was not required to stand down because the party leaders decided to give him a second chance to recover party confidence. It is possible to come back from a scandal, as Mitterrand and Clinton have proven.501 It may also be felt that the culprits have been sufficiently punished by damage to their reputation, although this is risky, as it means public opinion takes over the role of those who should formally apply