The problem of "dirty hands" and corrupt leadership.

• Author: Calhoun, Laurie

"Be sure, gentlemen of the jury, that if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago, and benefited neither you nor myself. Do not be angry with me for speaking the truth; no man will survive who genuinely opposes you or any other crowd and prevents the occurrence of many unjust and illegal happenings in the city. A man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time." --Socrates, in Plato's Apology, 31d-32a "You should therefore know that there are two ways to fight: one while abiding by the rules, the other by using force. The first approach is unique to Man; the second is that of beasts. But because in many cases the first method will not suffice, one must be prepared to resort to force. This is why a ruler needs to know how to conduct himself the manner of a beast as well as that of man." --Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe e altre opere politiche Successful political leaders have often been of questionable moral character. A persistent image in the political sphere is that of the active and powerful man willing to do whatever is strategically important in attaining his desired ends even though doing so may weigh heavily on his conscience. Is excellence in governmental leadership somehow incompatible with moral excellence? Does doing what one ought to do in one's capacity as a leader preclude the possibility of doing what one ought to do as a human being? "The problem of dirty hands" refers to the alleged necessity of compromising or abandoning moral principle in order to play the role of a government official effectively.

"Dirty hands" are said to result when a leader encounters a conflict of duties or values and must choose between alternatives, none of which is entirely satisfactory. In Jean-Paul Sartre's play Les mains sales (Dirty hands), Hoederer explains the view to Hugo (who refuses to "dirty" his hands):

You cling so tightly to your purity, my lad! How terrified you are of sullying your hands. Well, go ahead then, stay pure! What good will it do, and why even bother coming here among us? Purity is a concept of fakirs and friars. But you, the intellectuals, the bourgeois anarchists, you invoke purity as your rationalization for doing nothing. Do nothing, don't move, wrap your arms tight around your body, put on your gloves. As for myself, my hands are dirty. I have plunged my arms up to the elbows in excrement and blood. And what else should one do? Do you suppose that it is possible to govern innocently? ([1948] 1986, 193-94, my translation) In thinking about this issue, it is important to distinguish self-serving opportunists from those who suffer corruption through their sincere efforts to govern well. Self-serving opportunists often rationalize their dubious measures to themselves through self-deceptive references to "the good of the whole," claiming that group loyalty demands moral sacrifice or that "the end justifies the means." Egocentric opportunism, however, differs conceptually from dirty hands. The question before us is whether corruption in the political realm might arise as a result of the very nature of governance and morality. Do rulers simply have more opportunities for temptation and therefore succumb more often than do private citizens? Or does good governance sometimes require the sacrifice of moral standards? When corrupt governmental agents are detected, society tends toward leniency in its "punishment" of them. Might this leniency reflect a recognition of the problem of dirty hands, which leads people to forgive and forget so easily the crimes of their governments?

"Realists" maintain that dirty hands are inescapable. In contrast, "idealists" hold that the so-called problem of dirty hands is merely an excuse adduced by those who lack the moral fiber to do what they really ought to do in governmental contexts. (1) Kenneth Winston sums up the opposition between these two positions: "To be a realist in politics is to believe that political life exceeds our capacities in certain crucial ways. Idealism is the view that human capacities are adequate to political life" (1994, 39-40). At issue, then, may be humanity in the moral sense of that notion. The question is whether corruption, a fundamental transformation in one's moral character and principles, is an inevitable consequence of one's election of a governmental vocation. The word corruption derives from the Latin for "broken" and has a decidedly negative connotation, implying a loss of wholeness or integrity. We tend to view corruption as regrettable for persons themselves, even apart from the dangers that their corruption might hold for others.

Because the sorts of transformations in character that government officials undergo may well be irreversible, "dirty hands" might more aptly be termed "indelibly inked hands." For example, according to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, "habits build character" (1980), so a person who sacrifices his own principles one time becomes more likely to do so again in the future. Agents who set aside what once were their moral views become progressively desensitized to the sorts of violations that formerly elicited their moral indignation. Agents learn, and they become habituated to accept what once seemed unacceptable, no longer feeling compelled to object to what once seemed objectionable. In clinging to some goal while neglecting, even temporarily, his moral beliefs and principles, the agent thus metamorphoses slowly into a corrupted image of his former self. In this view, those who renounce moral standards and principles for the prudential interests of a group thereby transform themselves (albeit gradually) into persons who no longer embrace those standards and principles. Some might claim that they know where to "draw the line," insisting that they will not sacrifice certain fundamental beliefs. Still, if habits build character, then even the act of sacrificing less-fundamental beliefs renders one more likely to sacrifice other, perhaps more-fundamental beliefs in the future. Corruption may be a long, irresistible journey down a very slippery slope.

Realism and Idealism Versus Pragmatism

Sartre's 1948 play Les mains sales brought the expression "dirty hands" into common currency through the protagonist Hoederer, who in the preceding quotation expresses the basic stance of realism. However, Hoederer sometimes expresses a conceptually distinct view, evaluating as good any and all sufficient means to one's desired ends: "All means are good, when they are effective" ([1948] 1986, 193, my translation).

According to realism, sometimes immoral means are required to achieve moral ends, if Hoederer truly believes that it is not wrong to renounce the dictates of morality in order to achieve his ends, then he should not consider his hands to be sullied at all. He expresses a pragmatic theory of value when he insists that effective means to one's ends are good in virtue of their efficacy. According to pragmatists, there is nothing to the notion of goodness above and beyond efficacy, for there is no transcendent (metaphysical) concept of goodness to which good actions might correspond. Nor, according to pragmatists, is there an absolute Form in which actions might "participate" (a la Plato). Goodness just is efficacy. Because dirty hands are possible only the assumption of some nonpragmatic criterion of goodness, in the pragmatist's worldview, where appearance and reality coincide, no problem of dirty hands can arise. The guilt of agents who conduct themselves in an efficacious though unsavory manner is simply irrational. (2)

Idealists also insist that no one can act rightly by acting wrongly, but for different reasons than the pragmatists offer. It can never be your duty, governmental or otherwise, to do what is immoral. The so-called problem of dirty hands--that one might suffer corruption through performing one's official duty--is a conceptual impossibility, because acting in accordance with what is truly one's duty cannot cause the degradation of the agent. "Ought implies can" is often said to be a basic constraint on morality, and this maxim certainly suggests one plausible way of understanding the idealist position. It cannot be one's duty both to do and not to do something, but the problem of dirty hands presumes just such incompatibility, the reality of fundamental and ineluctable conflicts of duty. The idealist insists that multiple routes always lead to any given end, so a leader is never obliged to violate the dictates of morality in his official capacity. In this view, "dirty hands" defenses are self-delusive, and the burden of proof rests on the realist who would claim in any concrete case that the dictates of governmental excellence are incompatible with the dictates of morality.

The problem of political corruption is vividly depicted in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), in which a naive and forthright man is fortuitously appointed senator. Smith sets out on his journey to Washington filled with hopes of accomplishing noble aims, but he quickly learns that the conduct of contemporary political leaders bears no resemblance to the images of greatness that since childhood he has associated with men such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. In reality, the Capitol Hill politicians have sold their souls, enslaved themselves to the wealthy corporate sharks who really run the United States. Any political figure who refuses to acquiesce to the behests of the plutocrats is summarily ruined through the use of the capitalist-driven news media. Although truth and morality ultimately prevail, the "Hollywood ending" fails to dispel the profound cynicism instilled in the viewer throughout the rest of the film. Had the last two minutes been excised, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington would have been a powerful defense of political realism, as timely today as when it was...