Impartiality, Objectivity and Non-Partisanship
Impartiality and non-partisanship are important principles that are essential for ensuring fairness and justice in society.
Whether in the judicial system, government agencies, or the media, impartiality and non-partisanship are essential for ensuring that decisions and actions are based on facts and evidence rather than personal bias or the interests of a particular group.
Let us examine the concepts deeply.
What is impartiality?
Impartiality refers to the state of being fair and unbiased. It means treating all individuals and groups equally and without prejudice. In order to be impartial, a person should not allow their personal beliefs or feelings to influence their decisions or actions.
This is important in many contexts, such as in the judicial system, where judges and jurors are expected to be impartial as they give judgement without being biased. In journalism reporters are impartial as they are expected to present factual information without bias. Impartiality is essential for ensuring justice and fairness in society.
How does impartiality ensure ethical governance?
Impartial civil servants remains people oriented and thus the public trust on state and its machinery increases. For example, the unbiased SDM/DSP will command the respect of the people and hence acquire their assistance in various conflict management scenarios. Impartiality ensures civil officials and society/citizens have a positive and productive connection.
It contributes to the development of an equitable attitude toward everything and everyone. For example, impartiality will assist a DM/DC in providing the benefits of a government scheme without bias based on caste or religion.
Non-partisanship
Non-partisanship refers to the state of not being affiliated with or biased toward any particular political party or ideology. It is the idea of being neutral and unbiased in political matters and not taking sides with one party or another. Non-partisanship is often associated with fairness and objectivity.
It is important in many contexts where political neutrality is important, such as in journalism or in some government agencies. Non-partisanship can be difficult to maintain, as individuals may have personal beliefs and opinions that influence their actions, but it is an important principle to strive for in order to promote fairness and impartiality.
How does non-partisanship ensure ethical governance?
It will assist a government worker in making decisions free of fear or favouritism toward any political party and in accordance with constitutional norms. Non-partisanship, for example, will assist a DM/DC in carrying out the duties of a Returning Officer efficiently during elections.
It guarantees that the elected representative and government servants have an effective/professional relationship. Non-partisanship, for example, will increase/maintain a chief secretary‘s credibility regardless of the party in power.
Difference between impartiality and non-partisanship
Impartiality and non-partisanship are closely related concepts, but there is a subtle difference between the two. Impartiality refers to the state of being fair and unbiased and not allowing personal beliefs or feelings to influence one’s decisions or actions.
Non-partisanship is about being neutral and unbiased in political matters and not taking sides with one party or another.
While both concepts involve being unbiased and fair, impartiality is more general and applies to all situations, while non-partisanship specifically relates to political matters. However, both are important for ensuring fairness and objectivity in various contexts, such as in the judicial system, journalism, and government agencies.
Challenges in maintaining impartiality and non-partisanship in governance
There are several challenges in maintaining impartiality and non-partisanship in governance, including:
- Personal beliefs and biases: It can be difficult for individuals to set aside their personal beliefs and biases when making decisions or taking action. This can be especially challenging when the issues at hand are emotionally charged or relate to deeply held personal beliefs.
- Political pressure: Government officials may face pressure from politicians or other powerful interests to act in a particular way or to support a particular party or ideology. This can make it difficult for them to maintain impartiality and non-partisanship and to act in the best interests of the public as a whole.
- Conflicts of interest: Government officials may have personal or financial interests that conflict with their duties as public servants. This can make it difficult for them to maintain impartiality and to act in the best interests of the public.
- Limited information: In some cases, government officials may not have access to all of the information they need to make informed decisions. This can make it difficult for them to be impartial and nonpartisan, as they may have to make decisions based on incomplete or biased information.
- Public perception: Even if government officials are acting in an impartial and nonpartisan manner, they may be perceived as being biased by the public or media. This can damage the credibility and trust of the government.
Measures to ensure impartiality and non-partisanship in governance
There are several measures that can be taken to ensure impartiality and non-partisanship in governance, including:
- Establishing clear rules and guidelines: By establishing clear rules and guidelines for decision-making and behaviour, organizations can help to ensure that individuals act in an impartial and nonpartisan manner.
- Providing training and education: Training and education programs can help individuals understand the importance of impartiality and nonpartisanship and how to avoid personal biases when making decisions.
- Implementing conflict of interest policies: By implementing conflict of interest policies, organizations can help to ensure that individuals with personal or financial interests that may conflict with their duties as public servants are not involved in decision-making processes.
- Ensuring transparency: By making information and decision-making processes transparent, organizations can help to ensure that individuals and groups are held accountable for their actions and that the public can see that decisions are being made in an impartial and nonpartisan manner.
- Establishing independent review mechanisms: By establishing independent review mechanisms, organizations can provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that decisions and actions are fair and unbiased.
When there is a crisis of conscience and an ethical quandary to choose between right and wrong, impartiality and non-partisanship eventually provide neutrality and develop principles of integrity and objectivity. This eventually develops into a genuine dedication to public duty.
Mr T.N. Sheshan was able to thrive in difficult conditions while maintaining dignity and respect because he always adhered to the principles of neutrality, non-partisanship, and impartiality. This mindset has helped to overhaul the Election Commission.
In a nutshell, non-partisanship and impartiality maintain neutrality by promoting good governance, apolitical functioning, and decision-making transparency. These values are required to construct protections against conflict of interest in order to re-establish adherence to the diverse ideals established in the Constitution’s preamble.
Objectivity
“Dispassionate objectivity is itself a passion, for the real and for the truth”- Abraham Maslow
Definition
Objectivity refers to judging a situation or making decisions based on facts or evidence rather than personal preferences/opinions/biases. It means not letting personal feelings or any external influence affect judgment in any way.
For example, if the world exists of a prism only. People with different points of views might see only a rectangle from one side and a triangle from the other.
Only if a person sees the whole prism, we would say their point of view to be objective. It means seeing the object/world as it is.
Objectivity is antithetical to subjectivity. It refers to the ability to base judgment on rational/logical reasoning. Objectivity entails collecting evidence and then evaluating it in an impartial manner.
For instance, companies often consider involving a third party (such as a consultant) to get an objective opinion, before making important strategic decisions.
Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
| Objectivity | Subjectivity |
| Objective means basing judgment on verifiable information based on facts and evidence. | Subjective means basing judgment on information/perspectives based on personal feelings, opinions, or emotions. |
| To be objective is to be unbiased and unaffected by any external influence such as the threat or lure of bribes. | To be subjective means being influenced by emotions, feelings, opinions, or any external influence. |
| An objective statement is completely based on facts and is balanced. | Subjective statement represents an individual’s perspective or expression of opinion hence it varies from person to person. |
| An objective statement is verifiable and can be validated by using evidence. | A subjective statement cannot be checked or validated as there is no concrete evidence to support it. |
| Objective statements are absolute truths and not subject to interpretation. For instance, “Mt. Everest is the highest peak in the world” is an objective statement. | Subjective statements are open to interpretation. For instance, “Climbing on mountains is very difficult” can be a subjective statement as it can be interpreted by different persons differently. |
| Provable and quantifiable information that is based on scientific/ empirical analysis is considered objective. For example, the diagnosis of a disease based on a blood test can be considered objective. | subjective information is specific to the maker/subject and there is no standard unit of their measurement. For example, human emotions like happiness, sorrow, or fun cannot be measured. |
| Example- DNA testing and fingerprint analysis are objective tools for the identification of a person. | Example- Identification of a person by witnesses can be considered as an example of a subjective process because there is a chance of human error. |
Objectivity in Civil Services
Objectivity in civil services ensures impartiality, fairness, and transparency in decision-making, since in such a situation, personal biases and interests are not involved.
The best way of remaining objective is by upholding the rule of law. This fosters public trust, effective governance, and ethical administration, ensuring policies benefit all citizens equitably, regardless of personal affiliations or pressures.
For example, the tenure of T.N. Seshan, as the 10th Chief Election Commissioner of India, can be seen as an example of objectivity. He implemented transformational electoral reforms without being affected by any fear or favor. This way he could become a harbinger of making our electoral process free and fair in the true sense.
Views of Philosophers on Objectivity:
Several Philosophers gave utmost importance to objectivity in the field of ethics. Remaining objective in one’s judgments/actions is considered a foundational stone of being ethical in conduct.
Plato: Plato in his book ‘The Republic’ defined “justice” as the ‘rule of Reason’ over all other faculties (such as Appetite and Will). Moreover, he applies his idea of the ‘rule of reason’ to both i.e. the state and the person.
Aristotle: Aristotle, in contrast to Plato, identifies the ordinary objects of sense experience as the most objective reality.
John Stuart Mill: As per Mill, promotion of happiness makes an action objectively right but not necessarily morally right. Mill says in his ‘System of Logic’, “the promotion of happiness is the ultimate principle of Teleology”. Therefore, an action is objectively right if it maximizes happiness.
However, an action is morally right if it is in accordance with social rules which are protected by internal and external sanctions and which tend to promote general utility.
Immanuel Kant
As per Kant, objectivity does not exist as such and it is a characteristic of judgments.
According to the interpretation of his Categorical Imperative, one must “treat humanity, in one’s own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
Kant also argues that a person is distinguished by subjectivity, possesses a subjective point of view, and therefore has a unique moral standing.
Kant has used the idea of subjectivity to emphasize that each person should be valued as an end in him/herself. Every individual’s dignity must be protected. It appears that a person’s intrinsic worth largely depends on the existence of both an objective existence and a subjective conscious life.
Significance of Objectivity as a foundational value of civil services
Objectivity is considered a foundational value for Civil Servants. The Code of Conduct for Civil Servants also provides several provisions to ensure that civil servants act objectively while performing their duties. The importance of Objectivity in civil services is as follows:
Prevent Error of Judgement
Objectivity helps prevent personal biases from impairing one’s judgment. For instance, a civil servant who maintains high levels of objectivity in his judgment can avoid the pressure of family/friends when signing a contract.
Resolving Ethical Dilemmas
Civil servants have to handle several conflicts of interests and ethical dilemmas on a daily basis. E.g. Who should be rescued first during a disaster situation may present a complex issue to authorities.
Uphold the Rule of Law
The requirement for objectivity sets the limit for how far one can go in one’s assessment and what can be the basis of his decision.
For instance, the Removal of a slum may seem wrong if the Police commissioner thinks emotionally. However, the decision may be objectively right if it is beneficial for the slum dweller and the district as a whole in the long term.
Maximize Public Welfare
Being objective also includes an obligation for the authority to be consistent in its decision-making and treat equivalent cases alike. For instance, it is not objective to give one applicant extra benefits while refusing another similar applicant the same type of benefits.
Fulfillment of one’s Duties
The requirement for objectivity includes that, as a person working in an authority, one should not be putting time and effort into matters outside one’s duties. However, objectivity helps ensure that one fulfills his duties without any fear or favor.
For example, in situations of communal clash or ethnic unrest administration must use force on people indulging in violence. However, at the same time, it must ensure that innocent people do not face any inconvenience.
Fostering Integrity and Curbing Corruption
Integrity cannot exist without transparency. Further, integrity and transparency are closely tied to objectivity, which comes naturally only if civil servants seek to deliver public services with transparency.
This helps reduce instances of wastage, leakage, misuse of public resources, and bribery and helps in fostering integrity among them.
E.g. Objectivity demands that the government tendering process is transparent and fulfils requirements as established by rules and regulations.
Ways to Inculcate Objectivity
“To increase our objectivity, we must learn to switch off the mini-movies. Objectivity requires us to be mindful, present in the moment, and experiencing what is happening without judgment.”- Elizabeth Thornton
Inculcating Emotional Intelligence
Inculcating emotional intelligence and empathy for the underprivileged sections ensures that the motto of “serving the public” remains supreme for public officials. This can be done by various methods such as sensitization, role-playing, transactional analysis, and other methods of training.
Written Rules
Well-defined rules and regulations reduce the personal discretion of civil servants and help minimize subjectivity in their actions/decisions. E.g. Laws, regulations, and SOPs, all help improve objectivity.
Strong leadership
A visionary leader can help channel the efforts of his followers toward a common goal. This enhances the ability of followers to remain true to a common goal and honestly work towards its achievement.
Transparency and Accountability
Transparency and openness in the system help ensure objectivity as well. The Right to Information Act by ensuring transparency helps maintain objectivity as well. A civil servant who is mandated to disclose information under the RTI Act will ensure that decisions are taken objectively and as per SOPs.
Data Collection and Research
In the absence of proper data, information, and statistics, objective decisions cannot be made. Objectivity demands informed decision-making. The accuracy and objectivity of the judgments are based on the accuracy and extant of available data.
For example, Millennium Development Goals (MDG), had 18 indicators, yet we lacked proper statistical databases to compare performance. However now under Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there are 17 goals and 169 targets. Now better statistics and data are available which make it easier to make objective policies to achieve SDGs.
Personal biases that can affect objectivity
- Stereotypes: It is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It overlooks individual differences.
- Confirmation Bias: It is when one is inclined to seek out and use information (to make judgments) that is in agreement with one’s beliefs.
- Halo effect: It refers to judging a person by any one or a few of his/her traits.
- Primacy effect: making a judgment about something or someone based on just a first impression.
- Attribution bias: It is when one attributes an event to an unrelated (or even untrue) cause.
- Recency effect: determining things based on recent impressions about the things without considering their history.
Objectivity vs. Empathy
“I think perfect objectivity is an unrealistic goal; fairness, however, is not”- Michael Pollan
Objectivity demands properly observing rules, regulations, and SOPs. It entails making judgments based only on evidence/facts. Personal emotions should not come into play. Whereas, empathy demands having compassion towards weaker sections. Compassion and empathy are strong emotions which, at times, may make the judgment biased. Empathy is targeted towards individuals, while objectivity aims to fulfill the needs of the masses.
This way objectivity and empathy may sometimes be in contradiction. For instance, a judge who gives precedence to empathy over objectivity might give lenient punishment to a criminal. It may show his empathy but in the long run, this will reduce fear of punishment in criminals and hurt the interests of the masses.
Therefore, to ensure the welfare of the masses, objectivity is the key value to uphold. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to remain objective at all times. E.g. Our constitution is not only an objective document but also an empathetic document to address the needs of vulnerable sections. Positive discrimination is allowed in certain cases, especially towards SC, ST, Women, children, etc.
Similarly, several key policy decisions are taken by executives based on subjective analysis while having an element of empathy towards vulnerable groups. For example, Food security programs, Reservation policies, Subsidies, FDI in retail, etc.
Some experts consider Objectivity as a clerical function. Because at the higher levels of hierarchy where major decisions are taken, they consider objectivity as a robotic sin. E.g. it will not be fair to fine both poor and rich equally even when both have committed the same crime.
Conclusion
“Complete objectivity is not an option. We are all subjective about the way we respond to ‘what is,’ whether it’s the people we encounter, the circumstances in our lives, or ourselves. What we can do is reduce our subjectivity – what I call ‘I see, therefore it is.”- Elizabeth Thornton
With reference to civil servants both objectivity and empathy have the same goal to achieve i.e. welfare of the masses. Objectivity should not be considered as an end in itself. Rather it should be considered as a means, to achieve the end of ‘equality’.
