Editorial
| Author | Barry J. O'Toole |
| Published date | 01 June 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207679300800201 |
| Date | 01 June 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
1
EDITORIAL
The
Loss
of
Purity:
The
Corruption
of
Public
Service
in
Britain
Barry
J.
O’Toole
More
often
than
not
the
word
corruption
is
taken
to
mean
&dquo;the
abandonment
of
expected
standards
of
behaviour
by
those
in
authority
for
the
sake
of
unsanctioned
personal
advantage&dquo;
(Pinto-Duschinsky
1985,
p.164).
While
there
can
be
little
doubt
that
corruption
of
this
sort
does
indeed
take
place
at
all
levels
of
government
in
the
United
Kingdom,
it
is
probably
a
minor
problem;
and
it
is
certainly
a
minor
problem
in
comparison
with
the
all-pervasive,
more
insidious
and
pernicious
form
of
corruption
which
is
increasingly
evident
throughout
the
public
sector.
This
second
form
of
corruption,
which
may
be
generally
described
as
&dquo;the
perversion
or
abandonment
of
a
standard&dquo;
(Pinto-Duschinsky
1985,
p.163),
and
which
is
consistent
with
other
dictionary
definitions,
for
example,
to
make
putrid,
to
taint,
to
debase,
to
spoil,
to
destroy
the
purity
of,
and
to
pervert,
is
evident
in
the
governance
of
the
United
Kingdom
over
the
past
few
years.
In
particular,
the
ethic
of
public
service
has
been
tainted,
debased,
spoiled
and
perverted.
It
now
rarely
exists
in
its
purest
form.
The
concept
of
public
service
or
public
duty
is
simply
this:
that
the
public
official
puts
the
interests
of
society
above
his
or
her
personal
interests,
and
is
a
public
servant
purely
out
of
an
altruistic
desire
to
serve
the
public.
The
concept
is
as
old
as
philosophy
itself.
Indeed,
perhaps
the
most
important
statement
on
its
practical
meaning
is
contained
in
one
of
the
noble
classics
of
ancient
thought,
Plato’s
Republic.
Essentially
the
Guardians,
the
foremost
of
public
servants,
would
live
a
pure
and
simple
life,
without
the
temptations
of
private
property,
the
intention
being
to
remove
the
temptations
to
sacrifice
the
welfare
of
the
wider
society
to
personal
interests.
Plato
warned
against
the
development
of
family
or
personal
interests
because
such
interests
would
interfere
with
the
job
of
government
and
bring
the
whole
society
to
utter
ruin
(Plato
1941 ).1
I
In
some
ways,
of
course,
to
expect
public
servants
to
behave
without
personal
To continue reading
Request your trial