Ethics in politics? Why ethics?

By Geert van Istendael

I came upon the two terms “ethic of conviction” and “ethic of responsibility” in the sixties, reading Max Weber, while studying sociology. They can be found in a famous speech held by the great sociologist in 1919. For Max Weber, one’s actions are ethically responsible when one pays for the (practical) consequences of one’s actions. The ethic of conviction is justified by the (ethical) intrinsic value of one’s actions. Max Weber sees a stark contrast between the two while at the same time considering them not as absolute opposites, but as complementing one another.

I dealt in Belgian politics as a journalist in the 1980s. My daily observation of active politicians taught me how difficult it is to keep ethical principles clean in the mud pool of political practice.

Are there examples in modern politics of measures that adhere to the ethic of conviction?

Yes, of course. In Germany. Merkel’s historic statement “Wir schaffen das” (We can do it) is ethic of conviction in its purest form. These three words were not an outburst of profound irrationality, much less a surge of so-called female sentimentality; things that were written and shouted out loud at the time. The statement expressed the Chancellor’s rock-solid Christian conviction. She, the pastor’s daughter, was inspired by a Bible passage familiar to millions both in Germany and abroad. I mean the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 30-37). Angela Merkel merely multiplied the man left for dead in the parable by a factor of one million. There were two reactions from German citizens: an immense one full of hatred and, perhaps even more immense, one full of love and selfless generosity. With three words, Angela Merkel proved that a policy based on the ethic of conviction is not necessarily doomed to failure.

But that’s only half of this story. In retrospect, the Chancellor decisively turned to the ethic of responsibility on the refugee issue. Of course, she’s by no means naïve; Ms Merkel is a master of political craft. She sees through her political environment to the darkest corners. She knows the pitfalls, the garden paths, but also the benefits of the measures based on the ethic of responsibility and she is always ready to bear the consequences of her political actions in the ever uncomfortable tension between conviction and responsibility. In this sense, one could almost say that Angela Merkel represents Weber’s ideal type of political action. I say all of this although I am by no means a Christian Democrat.

In this reign of terror of Empress Corona, I think I can ascertain a strange convergence between the ethic of conviction and ethic of responsibility. Both forms of political ethics have become inextricably tangled. Responsibility sometimes mutates as conviction, conviction as responsibility.

Science and virology have profoundly shaped political strategies: quarantine, tests, face masks, closed schools, etc. It is remarkable how similar the measures are in the different European countries, perhaps with the exception of Sweden. Just in December of last year, this was all an Asian dystopia. Today they are the everyday routine. Here. The principles of science are equal to the principles of responsibility and conviction. There’s always something indisputable about conviction and science. Yet it is considered completely irresponsible not to adhere to the new rules and regulations.

The protesting, angry citizens are wrong. Still, I have to admit that Empress Corona bears a few dictator traits.
Firstly, a dictatorship keeps citizens in constant insecurity. We are experiencing that today. The causes of this new uncertainty are clear. Knowledge of the virus is extremely patchy. There are still no vaccines, not to mention the mass production and widespread distribution of an effective vaccine.
Secondly, in any dictatorship there is no alternative. The dictator’s word is law. Those who disagree end up in prison or are executed. With luck, one can emigrate. Of course, we are not that brutal. But we have known the statement there is no alternative – for years now. The English acronym TINA has gone around the world. Let us not forget that this statement is totally anti-democratic. A democracy, by definition, is the civilised, non-violent organisation of contradiction, strife, disagreement. Now there is apparently no alternative.

In the realm of Empress Corona, this equation applies:
Science = politics = responsibility = conviction.
The result is general civil obedience.

But the statement there is no alternative has accompanied economic and financial measures for decades. No wonder the strongest opposition to the new content of this equation comes from business circles. Until recently, another equation applied:

Economy = politics = responsibility = conviction.

Mind you, the concept of economy was almost 100% neo-liberal. Today we see how the two forms of ethics of conviction and responsibility collide. We want to completely exterminate COVID-19. But doesn’t that mean we risk destroying the economy and society?

In spite of it all, I believe that it is possible to create a new equation for the time after the fall of Empress Corona.
The drastic events of the past few weeks and months have shown how necessary, how indispensable, how life-saving our social security systems are, firstly for health care, but also for unemployment and for subsidies to businesses. I call social security a crown jewel of European civilisation, alongside the paintings of Dürer and Rembrandt, the music of Beethoven and Bach, the poetry by Dante and Hölderlin. We, the Europeans, have collectively neglected this gem of our culture. We thought social security was just an inconvenient cost driver. Precisely this has been refuted by the coronavirus crisis. We should urgently maintain and expand social security, this structured, public solidarity of all for all; we should make social security more generous and comprehensive. After the biggest crisis since the liberation, it’s time for a new social contract, for a new equation.

Social security = economy = politics = responsibility = conviction.