Protecting Whistle Blowers

PROTECTING WHISTLE BLOWERS 27/10/2011

The most common response to the problems facing whistleblowers is to suggest better whistleblower legislation. Yet it is remarkable how ineffectual such legislation is. Not only are whistleblower laws flawed through exemptions and in-built weaknesses, but in their implementation they are rarely helpful. Indeed, it might be said that whistleblower laws give only the appearance of protection, creating an illusion that is dangerous for whistleblowers who put their trust in law rather than developing skills to achieve their goals more directly.

Government introduction of whistleblower laws can be explained in various ways: as a sincere attempt to help whistleblowers, as a form of symbolic politics to pacify concerned citizens, or as a cynical attempt to entrap whistleblowers in a procedural abyss. The precise explanation is less important than an understanding that laws are not the best protection for whistleblowers. This same analysis applies, in large measure, to other official procedures regularly used by whistleblowers, such as Ombudsmen, anti-corruption agencies and the courts.

Far more helpful to whistleblowers are practical skills at understanding organizational dynamics, collecting data, writing coherent accounts, building alliances and liaising with the media. The value of such skills is obscured in the focus on official procedures. Skill development is a form of personal and group empowerment, whereas official procedures empower bureaucrats and lawyers. This suggests that a good way to assess means for aiding whistleblowers is to perform an inventory of skills needed and promoted.

Whistleblower laws put the focus on whistleblowers and what is done to them. An unfortunate feature of this focus is a relative neglect of the original issue about which the employee spoke out. Whistleblower laws do not and perhaps cannot require an investigation into an employee's allegations. During the drawn-out process of assessing whether reprisals have occurred, the original issue is not addressed. For a dismissed whistleblower, "success" usually comes in the form of a settlement, not a reinstatement; success in terms of organizational reform is not part of the agenda of whistleblower laws.

These shortcomings of whistleblower laws are so systemic that it is worth asking why anyone would bother with them at all. Three types of explanations can be labeled sincere, symbolic and cynical.

Undoubtedly most of those who promote whistleblower laws are completely sincere. This includes many whistleblower activists whose sincerity cannot be doubted, given that they themselves are victims of reprisals. But sincerity of intent is no guarantee of effectiveness in execution. The flaws in the vehicle - whistleblower legislation - are seen as unfortunate weaknesses, due to poor drafting, inadequate resources or ineffectual implementation.

The Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice submitted its 46th Report on The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 on June 9, 2011. The Chairperson was Smt Jayanthi Natarajan as stated by Mr Kaushiki Sanyal . But the bill requires certain amendments.

Whistleblower laws are only one avenue for handling disclosures and protecting whistleblowers. Other official channels include hotlines, auditors-general, ombudsmen and courts These assessments can be explained, in a general way, in the same way as the shortcomings of whistleblower laws: it cannot be expected that any formal procedure could be enacted and implemented that would enable single individuals, backed solely by the truth, to reliably win against powerful organizational elites.
Administrative officers acting against corruption, whistle blowers, and social activists are getting either convicted on charges of sedition or getting killed
These pointers are very evident to every Indian citizen and are giving confidence to the rich and powerful to think that they can go scot free in this system, even after committing the heinous crimes.

Does the President of India need any more reasons to dissolve this government, declare an emergency and revamp the electoral, judicial, political and administrative systems with immediate effect?

Political parties are only concerned and interested in finding weak points of other parties to demean each other as opposed to finding a solution. Not only are they guilty of not seeking new avenues for the betterment of the country but they have also failed to improve their ways or learn from their previous corruption charges despite being given repeated warnings and chances.

Thus, we have lost our faith in them and cannot entrust the fate of the country in their hands anymore.

Times have changed, it has been 60 years our Constitution was made and major changes have happened in technology and in governance since 1950, however our constitution is same as it was in 1950 (with only minor amendments as per the requirement of the politicians).

As the Constitutional head of India, if you fail to take further action on issues mentioned above the general public will believe that the President is also a party to this corruption nexus and youth will be left with no option but to initiate a revolution against this system.

Reading about whistleblowers can be depressing: their experiences are traumatic, the way they are treated is grossly unfair and their success rate in leading to reform in organisations is extremely low. It is an additional source of disillusionment to find that official bodies - despite the good intentions of most of those who work in them - are so seldom helpful. But there are a few signs of hope.

According to me the very concept of whistle blowing is only a few decades old. Abuses of employees are as old as organizations as is the visiting of reprisals on those who expose problems. The naming of a problem is often a large step towards dealing with it. There has been an increasing recognition of whistle blowing in English-speaking countries in the past decade, especially due to media stories, aided by Hollywood portrayals such as The Insider, the story of tobacco company whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand.

Whistleblower legislation, though it may serve primarily as a form of symbolic politics that gives only the illusion of protection, nevertheless reflects social expectations that something be done about organizational abuses. In many countries there is no whistleblower legislation and virtually no recognition of whistle blowing as a course of action. For all their weaknesses, official channels offer an acknowledgement that whistles blowing is legitimate and socially valued, raising expectations of action and justice.

Whistleblowers and their supporters are sharing their insights and experiences. Books and articles provide a valuable resource. There is an ever-larger amount of material on the web, providing information and contacts. In Australia, Britain and the US, there are organizations whose members are whistleblowers, providing mutual help and support. The sharing of information and experience provides a rich form of learning that is especially powerful because of the personal trauma of whistle blowing. In years gone by, most whistleblowers would have been likely to suffer in silence, often blaming them. This still occurs, but it is now more common for workers to search the web, find relevant information and contacts and plot a course of action with a better chance of success.

As workers develop better skills, they will have higher expectations of official channels. A well-informed and well-connected employee will not turn to official bodies unless they promise better prospects than what individuals can achieve through their own efforts. Why make a protected disclosure when a leak or a well-planned campaign is safer and more effective? This suggests that the best way to improve the performance of official channels is to develop workers' understanding and skills.

SIDDHARTHA SHANKAR MISHRA,
BUREAU CHIEF,
THESE DAYS, TASVER E HIND,
ORISSA, SAMBALPUR