OFTEN the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice does not even leave room for its friends to defend its actions. The behavior of some of the commission’s employees not only exceeds the authority allowed the commission under the system but also lacks in both intelligence and tact. The commission should be trying to gain the support of society to face the concentrated criticism campaign directed against it. We find, however, that some of its employees are emphasizing a negative image and thus increasing the strength of public anger against it.
The commission cannot counter the wave of criticism by dismissing whatever is printed in the press as baseless or fabricated. Even if there really are some journalists who blow up even the smallest of violations committed by the commission members, it is not reasonable or believable that all that is printed in the press about the commission’s violations is fabricated. The journalists usually obtain their information about the violations and misuse of power committed by the commission from the members of the commission itself.
I have written that some of the criticisms directed against the commission might be subjective.
In the commission, as in any government organization, there are people who make mistakes. If an official makes a mistake, we should not generalize this and say that it is true for everyone else in the organization.
In the Traffic Department, when a policeman makes a mistake, this is considered the officer’s fault. The blame does not go beyond the individual to the department as a whole.
Here lies the problem. When the employees of the commission commit mistakes, the commission does not give us the feeling that it is serious about correcting the mistakes or holding the wrongdoers accountable. On the contrary, the commission tends to defend its employees without any justification. By doing so, the commission sends a wrong message on two fronts — first to society, which sees the denial policy to mean that the commission is error-free and above criticism.
The second message is equally harmful — denial by the commission leads to its employees believing that they cannot be held accountable for any wrongdoing.
It is true that sometimes the commission resorts to such practices driven by the belief that it is being targeted and is the victim of unfair attacks by the press. It is equally true that facing criticism from others should lead naturally to self-criticism and ridding the commission of violations and mistakes.
In the face of the social and ethical challenges facing our society, the existence of the commission is not in question. However, we want a commission that is a part of society and is committed to it, not one that sees itself as society’s guardian.
We want a commission that communicates with society instead of living in isolation. We want the commission to work for the genuine improvement of society rather than simply being against it.
