Pointless or Powerful: The Case for Oaths of Office

AuthorJames S. Bowman,Jonathan P. West
Date01 September 2020
Published date01 September 2020
DOI10.1177/0095399719890836
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719890836
Administration & Society
2020, Vol. 52(8) 1147 –1169
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0095399719890836
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Article
Pointless or Powerful:
The Case for Oaths of
Office
James S. Bowman1
and Jonathan P. West2
Abstract
The practice of making oaths comes from ancient times, a tradition common
to virtually all peoples and cultures. Recent calls for ethics reform have
included questions about how or whether these declarations are honored.
In the fraught politics of today’s secularized, pluralistic society, skepticism
about oaths may be tempting, but it is insufficient as the topic deserves critical
reflection. This study assesses the efficacy of oaths of office by examining
them using intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual transcendental values
that define excellence. The analysis offers recommendations to reinforce the
significance of this once-venerable bond between the populace and public
servants.
Keywords
oaths of office, transcendental values, ethics
The normative basis of modern public administration centers on the belief
that government is an institution of high moral purpose, with ethics at the
heart of what it is about as a professional field (Bowman & West, 2018; Perry,
2015). Accordingly, the oath of office can be seen as the foundation and
1Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
2University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jonathan P. West, Department of Political Science, University of Miami, 1300 Campo Sano
Ave., Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA.
Email: jwest@miami.edu
890836AASXXX10.1177/0095399719890836Administration & SocietyBowman and West
research-article2019
1148 Administration & Society 52(8)
starting point for the exercise of power. As the predominant ethical claim
accepted by oath-takers, it binds the conscience, establishes a covenant with
the people, supports democratic values, and restrains the use of sovereignty.
The pronouncement obligates officials to uphold the Constitution and helps
ensure that they will speak the truth, keep promises, avoid corruption, and
maintain the Constitutional order. The oath defines what it means to be a
public servant and is mandated for all federal and state officeholders in the
three branches of government.1
Nevertheless, contemporary researchers suggest that the pledge does not
retain its historical meaning as an inviolable guarantee. The importance of
these declarations has diminished in recent generations, as they have lost
their authority as an integral part of governance (e.g., Boatright, 2013;
McKenzie-McHarg, 2018; Menzel, 2016). Seen as an empty, formalistic rit-
ual, the promises are often administered in a perfunctory manner and are
seldom regarded as a moral commitment (Carter, 1996, p. 108; Loonen &
Rutgers, 2016, p. 31; Rohr, 1989, p. 84). Indeed, many people have no clear
understanding of what an oath is (Sommerstein, 1999, p. 11).
Recent events have provoked questions about how and whether oaths are
honored. Among the many assertions, there have been apparent (a) violations
of the Constitution’s clauses on emoluments, faithful execution of law, sepa-
ration of powers, and protection against foreign enemies; (b) abrogation of
treaties; (c) expenditures without appropriations; (d) selling weapons without
congressional approval; (e) derelictions of duty in the disregard of responsi-
ble civic culture, informed discourse, and rule of law as the basis of deci-
sions; (f) attempts to politicize the civil service, the judiciary, the Census, and
scientific research; (g) failures to safeguard the nation’s electoral system; (h)
obstructions of justice with respect to Special Counsel and FBI (Federal
Bureau of Investigation) investigations; (i) abuses of the power of pardon in
addition to the potential use of presidential self-pardon; (j) unprecedented
declassifications of documents; and (k) apprehensions over the obligation of
cabinet members under the 25th Amendment.2 In fact, a bipartisan group of
former Senators wrote to their colleagues in office reminding them that they
took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution (44 Former U.S.
Senators, 2018). Such developments reflect the decline in respect for the oath
of office which has contributed to the deterioration of faith in government.
The purpose of this study is to consider anew the assumptions and efficacy
of oaths by utilizing a philosophical framework. It does not, however, empha-
size any particular administration and its officeholders. The discussion that
follows includes background material, identifies the methodology used,
reports the results of the analysis, and discusses implications of the findings
and future research directions in the conclusion.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT