|
So when the BBC approached me to see what I could offer for
the Reith Lectures, I suggested that I could look more broadly
at trust and accountability, particularly in the professions
and the public sector. In the lectures I argue that having
misdiagnosed what ails British society we are now busy prescribing
copious draughts of the wrong medicine. We are imposing ever
more stringent forms of control. We are requiring those in
the public sector and the professions to account in excessive
and sometimes irrelevant detail to regulators and inspectors,
auditors and examiners. The very demands of accountability
often make it harder for them to serve public sector.
Our revolution in accountability has not reduced attitudes
of mistrust, but rather reinforced a culture of suspicion.
Instead of working towards intelligent accountability based
on good governance, independent inspection and careful reporting,
we are galloping towards central planning by performance indicators,
reinforced by obsessions with blame and compensation. This
is pretty miserable both for those who feel suspicious and
for those who are suspected of untrustworthy action - sometimes
with little evidence.
In the Reith Lectures I outline a much more practical view
of trust. The lectures are not about attitudes of trust, but
about actively placing and refusing trust and the sorts of
evidence we need if we are to place trust well. Far from suggesting
that we should trust blindly, I argue that we should place
trust with care and discrimination, and that this means that
we need to pay more attention to the accuracy of information
provided to the public. Placing trust well can never guarantee
immunity from breaches of trust: life does not provide guarantees.
There is no total answer to the old question ‘Who shall guard
the guardians?’, and there is no way of eliminating all risk
of disappointment. Nevertheless, many of us would agree with
Samuel Johnson “it is better to be sometimes cheated than
never to have trusted”.
If we are to reduce the culture of suspicion, many changes
will be needed. We will need to give up childish fantasies
that we can have total guarantees of others’ performance.
We will need to free professionals and the public service
to serve the public. We will need to work towards more intelligent
forms of accountability. We will need to rethink a media culture
in which spreading suspicion has become a routine activity,
and to move towards a robust configuration of press freedom
that is appropriate to twenty first century communications
technology. This won’t be easy. We have placed formidable
obstacles in our own path: it is time to start removing them.
|