The negativity directed at numerous high-profile politicians in recent months calls into question their role in governing professional conduct, but who should guard the guards themselves? asks Dr Brian Keegan
There is an old saying from classical wisdom that you should only speak good of the dead, and Boris Johnson probably knows the Latin translation. Of course, the former British Prime Minister is happily anything but dead, even though his political career might be.
One of the more surprising aspects of Johnson’s political demise has been the extent to which the normally moderate commentariat turned, not just on his premiership, but also on the individual.
Calm reputable voices like The Economist (“he lacked the moral fibre”) and the Financial Times (“a wanton disregard for rules and for the truth”) delivered scathing editorials castigating the man and his morals to an extent typically reserved for the tabloid response to sex offenders.
Ordinarily, it is the dignity of the office that protects the incumbent from the worst slings and arrows. Once their office has been lost, however, they become fair game, as Donald Trump and Nicolas Sarkozy, both former presidents of their respective countries, know well, having shared the ignominy of rigorous investigations into their conduct while in office.
You do not need to hold a particularly exalted position, as the former Irish Minister of State Robert Troy will attest, to be a casualty of public concern over your actions. There can also be public unease where former office holders have used their previous positions in a manner perceived to be abusive. EU ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has called this the “revolving door of influence.”
Despite all the regulation and governance guiding so many aspects of life (and Chartered Accountants are particularly sensitised to this), we don’t seem to be able to ensure good behaviour among our elected representatives, public officials and expert advisors.
So, who regulates the regulators? Chartered Accountants will be familiar with the activities of the Institute’s Professional Standards department, but perhaps less so of the extent to which the Institute itself is under the scrutiny of the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA), the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and so on.
Nor might they be aware of organisations such as the Monitoring Group, an international consortium of the great and the good, scrutinising the development of the auditing and ethical standards to which accountants must adhere.
All of these regulators and meta-regulators are creations of the political system. The star of government regulation can fall as well as rise. The FRC is currently being reconstituted as the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority in the UK. In Ireland, the Corporate Enforcement Authority has replaced the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. In both instances, these authorities are granted additional powers and autonomy at the behest of politicians.
There is also the sin of political omission. Where is the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that devolved regulation is appropriate to the needs of Northern Ireland? This is why there should be no sympathy for any politician caught in breach of standards or regulatory compliance.
They are directly responsible for the regulatory environment in which Chartered Accountants and other financial professionals earn their living. It is intolerable that their conduct be in breach of the kind of standards they require us to observe.
Another Latin tag for this, with which Boris Johnson may also be familiar, is “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?” — “Who Guards the Guards Themselves?”
It cannot be left to journalists from the Financial Times, Handelsblatt, or The Economist to do the guarding. All of the negative attention garnered by politicians over the summer might not change the future behaviour of elected representatives holding a duty of care over professional conduct.
Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland