What happened to ethics in politics?

“A university is a microcosm of the country,” writes academic Daniele Struppa. As someone who spent most of her life at universities, I have always felt that they reflect the very best of society’s aspirations. I was fortunate to hold the role of professor, program director and dean over the course of more than 30 years in academia. It was always assumed that I would perform in an ethical manner, as would my colleagues.

If the university is such a microcosm of society, how do we explain our willingness to support leaders outside of universities who appear not to be driven by the same ideals?

For the first time in history, a former American president and today’s most powerful candidate in the Republican Party faces 91 felony charges across criminal indictments. Less dramatically, though not insignificantly, a Canadian prime minister is formally found to have broken ethics rules with nothing more than a bit of public embarrassment — also a historical first. An Ontario premier is forced to apologize and backpedal in releasing Greenbelt lands to developers, prompting the RCMP to investigate allegations of corruption and breach of trust.

Elsewhere, Brazil’s Senate accuses former president Jair Bolsonaro of crimes against humanity for his handling of the pandemic. Instead of leading the way to a more sustainable world, former Australian PM Tony Abbott — a non-scientist— challenges the findings of 97 per cent of climate scientists worldwide to arrogantly declare that anthropogenically caused climate change is “implausible.” In the worst wars of recent times, leaders seem to need persistent reminders that innocent civilians on all sides are being affected by military acts of vengeance.

Pick up any newspaper today and it is clear how internationally, the list of unethical and potentially illegal behaviour among our leaders goes on and on.

In a different era, Dwight D. Eisenhower suggested: “The supreme quality of leadership is integrity.” Winston Churchill argued, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” I am quite certain that had I faced criminal indictments as a former program director or university dean, even my tenure would not have protected me from relinquishing my leadership position. What makes our political leaders entitled to a different outcome?

It may be a matter of despondency. It is no secret that in an age of social media, voters are increasingly losing faith in their governments. Consider how in 1958, fully 73 per cent of American voters said they had trust in the federal government. By 2021, it shrank to 24 per cent. More and more people are dissatisfied with democracy, concluding that our leaders are simply out of touch with our basic needs and values.

Perhaps it is time to rethink how we engage in public dialogue. Rather than resorting to extremist positions and attacking those with whom we disagree, maybe we should stop and re-evaluate leadership ideals. Could it be that the biggest problems these days are the huge rift and growing distrust and intolerance that is developing between countries, political parties and competing value systems?

Canadians may not have spent enough time focusing on a historic moment that occurred recently in the House of Commons. The new Speaker took an initiative that squarely addressed the question of leadership ideals. “As a keen follower of parliamentary proceedings,” said Greg Fergus, “I have noticed a deterioration in the collective decorum in this place.” And, he added, “it is important to note that this deterioration was not inevitable. It is not a natural outgrowth of the advent of social media. We can choose to conduct ourselves differently.”

It was no small irony that he was persistently, aggressively interrupted in his opening statement.

But still — good for him! Those who have ever witnessed the raucous, abusive brawls that regularly grace the House of Commons will not need much convincing that our leaders are neglecting to set a fine example of respectful debate or meaningful dialogue. It is no wonder that a recent Angus Reid Institute poll finds that Canadians describe House of Commons debates as simply “posturing” (54.6 per cent), “useless” (46 per cent), and “dishonest” (38 per cent).

So, in this climate, I find that the Speaker’s statement was a hugely significant one and it deserves to be highlighted here and elsewhere for its courage and insight.

My father used to say that we could disagree without being disrespectful. In fact, the best arguments were those that were well-reasoned rather than emotionally charged and abusive.

In that spirit, I suggest it is about time for a different style of leadership — one that is driven by reason and evidence, not shock and entertainment; by genuine dialogue, not obstinate shouting matches; by decency, not personal attacks and simplistic ad hominem fallacies.

And if law enforcement is coming after our leaders, perhaps, as voters, we might want to rethink our priorities at the ballot box.

I am reminded of the great humanitarian Jane Goodall, who recently mused: “I’m curious as to why we still go to war. We’re the most intellectual creatures to ever walk the planet, and yet we’re destroying our only home. We’re killing each other. We can’t co-operate.”

Now more than ever, our leaders need to stop bipartisan posturing and privilege collaborative, morally sound discourse. I am not alone in suggesting this course of action: 13 American presidential centres have called for civility and respect in political discourse as polarization surges across the nation.

A recent study reminds us that “being a moral person, an ethical political leader, sets good examples of behaviour, sets the tone at the top and challenges those who do not behave ethically, as well as encourages, supports and rewards those who perform and conduct themselves well.” When did our leaders forget such a basic principle, and why should we continue to support them? If I expect moral behaviour at work, I should expect it in the political arena. It’s time for us to realign our priorities and seek ethical leadership at all levels of government. For me, the alternative is too frightening to contemplate.

Ingrid Leman Stefanovic is professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and Simon Fraser University. She is editor of Conversations on Ethical Leadership: Lessons Learned from University Governance, published in 2023 by the University of Toronto Press.