The Importance of Laws for Whistleblowing

Abstract

The Importance of Laws for Whistleblowing William Kingston Since whistleblowing was first discussed in Studies in 2001,1 the focus on actions from within organisations to stop wrongdoing in them has intensified. A major factor in this has been the work of national versions of the Transparency International movement. These built on the earlier published experience of Paul van Buitenen, who discovered and revealed wholesale peculation in the financial accounts of the European Commission, As almost always happens in such cases, the resources of the organisation were deployed in strength to try to destroy him, just as in Ireland the resources of Garda management were deployed in outrageous strength to try to destroy Sergeant Maurice McCabe.2 Both survived, but very many whistleblowers do not. The Charleton Tribunal vindicated Sergeant McCabe, who has received the highest possible forms of public apology and is apparently in line for very large compensation from the state.3 However, he is also reported to have said that, if he had known what suffering it would cause him and especially his family, he could not have had the courage to report the Garda corruption he had found. Reckless courage The courage to blow the whistle is indeed either reckless or on the border of recklessness. This makes it a very scarce attribute, as is shown in Ireland by the ongoing cervical check crisis. Women whose tests for cancer were found to be wrong were deliberately not informed of this to save reputations, denying them the earlier treatment that could have saved their lives. The number of people in the Health Services Executive (HSE) who knew what was being done – and not being done – must have been considerable. Some of those, who had not left their heads and hearts at the door of their place of work, were surely unhappy about what they were observing. Yet not a single one of them spoke up to prevent it. The issue was brought into the open only because one of the women whose test had been misread saw her own file by William Kingston Studies • volume 108 • number 429 104 accident. As one TD said in the Dáil, ‘the public simply could not understand why nobody shouted stop’. Yet, from the perspective of individual HSE employees, this is perfectly understandable. The few who may have considered going public about what was going on were not stupid, and were aware of the potential cost that speaking up could have for them and for their families. They knew that very many of those who challenge their organisations find themselves with their careers in ruins and even with their lives wrecked. Enormous value of whistleblowing Those rare individuals who do blow the whistle benefit the public far beyond anything they may achieve in their own case. Initial wrongdoing is almost certain to be less harmful than its concealment. The first administration of contaminated blood to patients, for example, may have contained an element of mistake, but the rest were deliberate. Every organisation can benefit from whistleblowing, because its own interest can diverge from its specific task. Fear of being found out can prevent the growth of a culture of covering up mistakes at the lower end of the scale and crime at the upper end. Means to prevent cover-ups are especially needed in the public service, because constraints on employees in this reduce their intrinsic satisfaction in dealing with their organisation’s tasks. This correspondingly strengthens the attention they pay to where they stand in the hierarchy and gives special value to promotion within it. Those who focus on their own career path rather than on the task of the organisation are the most likely to get promoted. The functioning of the hierarchy and its survival then progressively become their main concern and the actual objectives of the organisation are relegated to a poor second place. As time passes, selection of the most career-focused individuals solidifies a bureaucratic organisation’s hierarchical structure. This in turn renders it progressively more self-regarding and less capable of delivering any outputs expected of it. The failures in these outputs which inevitably result make covering them up endemic and indeed acceptable to...