91. Integrity is an important policy touchstone
SPs’ policies are generally judged and evaluated against various aspects of integrity. SPs should therefore ensure that their policies show (1) consistency over time, (2) consistency at a given moment, (3) color, and (4) justice for those involved, as well as (5) being properly carried out.The less SPs do this, the more harshly others will hold them to account.
Integrity offers criteria for judging what SPs do and who they are, as well as for evaluating their policies, plans, contracts, programs, strategies, and memoranda. This often happens implicitly, as different aspects of integrity are applied. Let us examine some examples.
If a policy is typified as erratic or wavering, this implies a negative judgment. In such cases people use consistency as a standard, with the expectation that policy should form an integral whole. Stating that employment is the top priority one day and that cuts are most important the next, without a change in circumstances, shows inconsistency. Viewed in this way, integrity of policy reveals an inherent integrity risk to democracy. Changing coalitions lead to changing policy. Every new coalition will set new priorities, points of departure, and policy features (otherwise the former coalition might as well have continued). This inconsistency makes elected organizations unpredictable and therefore unreliable.
Policy can be inconsistent, showing a lack of integrity over time, and it can also be irreconcilable in a given moment. For example, if the environment becomes a policy spearhead, but at the same time motor vehicle taxes are reduced and public transport costs are raised, that is inconsistent. Such policies are not integrated, and fail to form a logical whole. Stakeholders will look at the policy, taking integrity, whether explicitly and consciously or otherwise, as a basis for judging its merits.
Another way a policy can be criticized is for lack of color. Policies can be portrayed as bland, pragmatic, and technocratic.This indicates a lack of integrity because people expect policies to be recognizable, with clear points, based on ideals. Compromise can beat policies flat. In order to avoid this, instead of seeking to compromise on each point, coalitions could give one side or another their way on individual issues, so that each party gets its way in a number of points and is recognizable for it. The risk here is that the entirety is incoherent, lacking integrity and recognizability. Good policy should therefore be driven by a shared mission and vision, with a story behind it. The mission and vision can even be morally charged. Thatcher and Reagan, for example, presented their political programs as crusades against evil, Martin Luther King stated, “I have a dream”, Helmut Kohl spoke of “blooming landscapes”, and George H.W. Bush of “a thousand points of light”.
Policy can also be judged from the perspective of integrity by looking at whether the content does justice to everyone involved. Are particular groups or interests unjustly neglected or is there an even distribution of the advantages and disadvantages? The importance of integrity in this respect is also visible in the mottos, slogans, and titles used in policy programs and agreements. Slogans such as “mending what is broken”, “finishing the job”, and “tackle the problem, don’t pass the buck” reflect the underlying importance of integrity.528
Integrity is also used as a framework for assessing the execution of policy. Policy must be carried out to have integrity. If not, then there is an inconsistency between words and deeds, between paperwork and practice, between what people say they will do and what they actually do. If an administration says it will implement reforms but fails to do so, this is grounds for calling the administration to account. Policy is a promise that others should be able to rely on and hold policymakers to. If the policy is not carried out, it shows it has not had the right priority, that the policy makers lack the dedication and energy to carry it through or that those who stand to benefit from it are not taken seriously. The importance of this shows not only in the supervisory bodies that check on such issues, but also in the fact that when it comes to elections and appointments people and parties are judged mainly on the promises they have fulfilled over the past term