PUBLIC SECTOR MORALE AND ‘INFORMED CONSENT’
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1984.tb00570.x |
| Published date | 01 December 1984 |
| Date | 01 December 1984 |
EDITORIAL
PUBLIC SECTOR MORALE
AND
“FORMED
CONSWIT‘
In discussions on limited warfare’ there are established ways of approah the
connection between the morale of the combatants and the consent of the taxpayer
to defence expenditure. Distinctions are readily made between the ‘interested
opinion’ of the armed services and ’public opinion’ lending support to the
use
of
military force
in
foreign policy. Intervention by British troops outside the
NATO
area can
best
be undertaken
if
the cause
is
just, the capacity of the fire-power
appropriate, and the purpose of the enterprise clear. Each of the
armed
services
knows the value of sustaining an ’informed public’; display teams give highly pro-
fessional presentations in schools and colleges; select committees informally
briefed.
All
the lessons of overseas engagement from Suez
to
the Falldands have
led military planners to take account of expressions of consent.
But there
is
no such road to agreement in the defence of morale
in
the public
&or
as
a whole. There is no idiom of public relations that can compete with
the appeal of feats
of
arms.
All
the different kinds of public authority cannot
be
brought
within
the compass of the notion of ’informed consent’ which
seems
mn-
tial to effective government. The connection between the job satisfaction of the
administrator and the compliance of the customer or client is not
SO
easily made.
As
Roger Jowell and Colin Airey have shown
in
their survey
of
British social
attitudes,
it
is
possible to demonstrate empiridy that voters
are
prepared to declare
their commitment to high levels
of
public expenditure. But judging governments
by the effectiveness of their policies is a highly political undertaking. There is a
world
of
difference
between
answering
a questio- and ading
within
the context
of the present electoral system. It
is
not possible to separate having a strong
sense
of purpose in the public service from defining properly constituted authority.
To
what extent
is
present concern about the low morale
of
public =ants more
than
a
reaction to the Government’s policies? Are there new approaches to the
management
of
consent? Are the traditional doctrines
of
Parliament tempering the
authority of the
Gown
still adequate?
All
the words written during the past year on Orwell’s vision of
1984
ought
to have helped
to
clanfy the meaning of ‘informed consent’. The Campaign for
Freedom of Information,
so
skilfully managed by Des Wilson and
Jame~
Cornford
in
a
year
with
strong
emotional connotations, has certainly
taken
up the
challenge.
It has drawn attention to the need for reasoned explanation. There have been
so
many editorials on the difference between
1948
and
1984,
and
SO
many references
to
’newspeak’ or to Orwell% concern for the quality of political language.
To continue reading
Request your trial