Lorraine Mallinder, writing in New Statesman (17th February 2017), illustrates a particular case of what is a growing problem.* She tells of Ebrimah Jammeh who like many lost family in the Gambia. He now wants not simply peace and reconciliation but retribution. The likelihood is that he will not get this within Gambia because those who have committed crimes against humanity will be given an amnesty. This is not a problem for Africa; increasingly, it seems, that a free pass is a price paid for a peace agreement. Such a deal formed part of the Good Friday Agreement. The Irish and British states gave amnesty to those who had placed bombs in public, and respectability to their leaders and associates.
A crime against humanity is so called because it is beyond the scope of any state; it is a crime against all of us and for that reason we have international courts. As hideous local deals proliferate it is time that participants were made aware that they cannot absolve or be absolved in the name of humanity. In other words, for the sake of peace a perpetrator may walk free within a state or region but he or she should face justice if ever they leave their sanctuary and that risk should dog them for the rest of their lives. The best that Ebrimah can hope for is that Gambian perpetrators will some day be arrested in the name of humanity in another country.
It has become far too uncommon for a citizen or a worker to speak up when confronted by something that is wrong. Worse, while objecting and arguing is taken as heroic, there would appear to be a consensus on silence: that keeping one’s mouth shut is acceptable. What is at stake here is the abandonment of integrity, i.e. the ordinary responsibility of the ordinary citizen in workplace, institution, club, on or off line and in casual interaction to speak truth to bad behaviour, illegitimate instructions or plans and indeed complete bollocks.
It has been necessary to surround whistle-blowers with protective laws and institutions. This is to protect their right to … well, their right to what? You see, there is an enormous difference between protecting their right to be exceptionally heroic and protecting their right to behave as any decent person should. The difference plays out in the treatment of those who knew and remained silent.
The protection offered to whistle-blowers makes it just about possible for an individual to act with integrity. Yes, it incentivises doing the decent thing but not overly so; it offers a measure of security but it also applies a label and probably ends a career. It is a contradiction – even madness – to accept that ordinary integrity be treated as exceptional and in need of protection. It is, therefore, essential to incentivise integrity by treating it as an expectation. That is to say, whistle-blower legislation must include the obligation that after enquiries are completed and perhaps offenders dealt with, attention should turn to those who remained silent, i.e. attention should focus on those who demonstrated a lack of ordinary integrity. In at least some cases the failure to behave properly will mark these people as unfit for the positions they hold. However, the main reason for extending the process beyond the individual whistle-blower is to incentivise whistle-blowing.
It has to be made clear that citizens are required to operate with integrity. Moreover, it has to be emphasised that integrity is a requirement for most jobs, and failure to demonstrate it – should the occasion arise – will result in opprobrium at least. It is not acceptable that the one or two demonstrably good people in an organisation should walk off as heroes into obscurity, leaving time servers and chancers to rewarding careers.