Accept Recommendations: G7

Heptad : Affirmation of Principles

Once progress is expected (G6), an institution is potentially capable of developing recommendations for improvement that can command society-wide approval.

Such recommendations require an additional and final level, the demand for transparency (L7) and depend on an official public inquiry. "Official", because government funding and support is essential, and "public" because everyone should be able to contribute and witness the inquiry process.

Recommendations will have been offered in previous grouping, but the difference here is that they are produced with a confidence based on the method of production and the explicit affirmation of principles that embody current values and beliefs, which means the public interest.

Official public inquiries that are truly independent and given full powers to penetrate the secrecy of powerful bodies can unify a society and reassure citizens. They are self-contained limited-life entities whose leader, a legal expert, seeks to incorporate the views of experts, in-group staff, and recipients of services and anyone else who wishes to make a deposition. All findings and recommendations are simultaneously owned by the inquiry and by wider society.

It follows that this bureaucratic endeavour can be amazingly fervent in its promotion of the public interest. It proceeds by demanding radical transparency confidently because those powers are built-in. It is expected to challenge damaging perspectives skillfully, which is why legal minds are often brought to bear. The inquiry uses statistics selectively, analyses issues thoughtfully with the help of experts and academics , and is expected to skillfully construct a narrative. From all this, it can make convincing recommendations which are practical remedies.

Schema

Function:

To have an institution that is built on principles valued in society, even if the status quo has deficiencies.

Quality: Confident i.e. holding that society's principles with its intrinsic values and beliefs are worthwhile despite all the problems.

Integration within the Group:  Progression of focus from awareness of human needs through practical concerns and then to general understanding and finally to the most direct access to how needs are being met.

Integration across the Groups: Not applicable.

Psychological Correlate: Pride or shame, with gratification and frustration.

Institutional Tension: To welcome official public inquiries with radical access to details of failures and deficiencies so as to generate recommendations that will be widely accepted.

Practical Implications: Meeting ever-evolving public needs is given due attention.

Essence of the Work 

Conduct an inquiry impartially on the basis of full transparency and free of official interference so as to provide credible respected recommendations that are widely accepted.

Public inquiries enabling transparency occur in a charged atmosphere. Typically there has been a serious or long-standing failure. The government may be on the line and reputations may be at stake. The goal of the inquiry, however, is not to dispense blame but to shine a light on the institution so as to determine ways to improve it.

Of course, consequences like prosecutions may follow if they are appropriate.

ClosedExamples from Australia:

Inquiries use public hearings, expert inputs and powers of compulsion that ensure maximum transparency. It is expected that staff from government and organisations will cooperate and participation by users of the institution is encouraged, especially those that have suffered from its failure. Depositions from the general public should be welcomed. Experts and consultants are usually called to advise and supplement evidence.

While governments and powerful organisations wish to hide their part in the mess, transparency is crucial for public confidence. That is why the inquiry needs to be held in public and why it requires powers of compulsion in regard to release of official or corporate documents. Subpoenas are also needed to enforce attendance at the inquiry even by highest level politicians and civil servants, and evidence needs to be provided under oath. All individuals are subjected to cross-examination.

The typical example is the Royal Commission as held in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Other examples are hard to find, potentially reflecting the immaturity of politics in those societies.
ClosedWhy?

It seems that most governments are simply too authoritarian to permit powerful inquiries, and the elites are perfectly willing to hide corruption and malfeasance.

The UK, the origin of Royal Commissions, appears to have replaced them with official inquiries of various sorts: commonly operating at L3. The Scott Report of 1992 revealed how difficult it was to extract relevant documents from the Government.

Many public inquiries are held around the world, but they appear to be commissions set up to produce a defensible account (G23) or strategy review (G33) with limited goals like approving a development or assigning blame after a public disaster.

While their focus is on generating an acceptable narrative, the government is likely to be embarrassed in such cases. So secrecy is common, delays in reporting may be lengthy and the report may even be buried.

Example: ClosedLiberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry

Official impartial public inquiries threaten governments but extreme public concern can push them to be instituted. The response is a set of recommendations accepted due to public trust in the process as described above: especially powers to compel attendance and obtain documents.

Genuine G71-public inquiries are expensive to run and lengthy, taking many months but preferably no longer than 2 years. Proceedings are followed closely in the press, especially in regard to exposés and final recommendations. The final report is usually lengthy.

The inquiry must be conducted by someone whose impartiality is beyond reproach and who is experienced in hearing and weighing up evidence in socially contested situations. This naturally suits a senior member of the judiciary.

A single person may lead the inquiry or there may be a team, the "commission", led by a Chairman. Experts may be used as advisors.

Transition

We have now reached the most comprehensive way to assess the institutional status quo and make recommendations. As explained earlier, these are often ignored or watered down due to the influence of powerful vested interests, including the government which commissioned the inquiry to produce those recommendations.

The only way forward is to differentiate the levels and re-cycle to the monads for an embrace of the activism so essential for the constructive evolution of any societal institution.

Originally posted: 28-Mar-2024