Lost in the rising tide of anti-government feeling and the erosion of trust in government that has been the most salient feature of the American political landscape for the last quarter century is a fundamental fact: the government is not a separate entity apart from us. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "We are the government, the government is us, you and I". What can be done to restore our confidence in the ability of ourselves and our fellow citizens to govern our communities, states, and nation with fairness and competence?
Most of us trace the beginnings of the current view of government to the cynicism and loss of faith associated with Watergate and the Vietnam War. But at least one noted scholar saw what I believe to be the root of the problem in the early part of the cozy, rosy Fifties. On page one of his seminal 1953 work, Community Power Structure, Floyd Hunter wrote the following:
There appears to be a tenuous line of communication between the governors of our society and the governed. This situation does not square wit the concepts of democracy we have been taught to revere. The line of communication between the leaders and the people needs to be broadened and strengthened - and by more than a series of public-relations and propaganda campaigns - else our concept of democracy is in danger of losing vitality in dealing with problems that affect all in common.
The situation Hunter describes is worse today. And that leads to cynicism and distrust in at least two very important ways. First, in the absence of clear and open communication, suspicion and fear develop, even when unwarranted by the facts, if the facts were known. It is human nature to fear the worst. And in such situations, when the governors do not account for their actions, when they can operate in the dark, then abuses of power and authority are often not only suspicioned, they are real. Second, when ordinary folks begin to believe that "reality" does not conform with the basic tenants of American citizenship, things like fairness and equality under the law, then, of course, cynicism and distrust develop. If Roosevelt is right, and Lincoln is right, and this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, then ordinary people should be able in some way to influence public policy. If they cannot, then we have a situation that, as Hunter says, "does not square with the tenants of democracy we have been taught to revere." An no one wants to be a patsy.
Democratic government depends upon the consent of the governed. There is some bottom to this pit of distrust, and when that bottom is reached our government will fly apart, because trust is the glue that holds it together. It happens all over the world. It's played out often on CNN. I don't want it to happen here.
So, as I said at the beginning, what can be done? Or more specifically what can be done by auditors? We have a central role here. It is not one that often acknowledged, and certainly not often embraced by either auditors or the other characters that government auditors deal with, but it's clear. Government Auditing Standards, section 1.10 reads as follows:
Our system of managing public programs today rests on an elaborate structure of relationships among all levels of government. Officials and employees who manage these programs need to render an account of their activities to the public. While not always specified by law, this accountability concept is inherent in the governing processes of this nation.
I'm sure Hunter, a sociologist, didn't know it. But I would say that an aggressive system of performance audits can be an effective means of "broadening and strengthening" communication between the leaders and the people. And the ultimate outcome of such a program should be increased trust and confidence in our collective ability to deal with "problems that affect all in common" and to hold our communities together.
|
Funkhouser on Auditing