Thus far, we've defined representation and stewardship (Post 1 on the topic) & taken a look at how those two items relate to elected officials at multiple levels of government (Post 2 on the topic). For Part 3, we're going to quickly look at this continuum and apply it to appointed officials.
Appointed officials fulfill a variety of functions, from Presidential Cabinet-level Secretaries to town / village administrators and all levels in between. These individuals are often holden to the political whims of those who appoint them, as they also often have the authority to remove these individuals from their appointed position.
Accountability to the general public is at least one degree removed for these appointed officials. The citizens elect the individuals who appoint them, if the citizenry is dissatisfied they must lobby their elected officials, they cannot directly vote the appointee out or recall them. Likewise, the appointed officials represent by one degree of removal (that is to say, since they were appointed by individuals who were elected, in fulfilling their will, they are also fulfilling the will of the citizenry in a roundabout way).
Interjecting my opinion, since there is this level of removal from the will of the citizenry, stewardship takes on a greater level of importance. The appointed official must take into account the good of an entire agency / populous, direct representation of the will of an individual or a sub-group should take a back seat to the larger good, as that is the good they have been entrusted with.
One could argue that this level of removal is necessary for the appointed official to maintain a higher level of objectivity, in this manner, they are not constantly thinking about the next election with every decision they make - it allows them an opportunity to consider the good of the whole, not just the voter before them that they might upset with their decisions.
Finally, elected officials should take into consideration the ability of the appointee to maintain objectivity with regards to the rule of law above all else. The ability to be fair in their interpretation & application of the rules / laws they are being appointed to uphold should be the defining characteristic of an appointee - something one could argue is the very definition of stewardship. Though, as we discussed in the last post, stewardship and representation rarely exist exclusive of the other, just opposite ends of the same continuum. In this case - the slider on that scale rests closer to stewardship than representation.
Next week, the 4th and final post in this series - a quick summation of these 3 posts and my final thoughts on stewardship & representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment