Accountability, transparency, impartiality, and other ethical issues : improving democracy reduces violence

Violence is detrimental to the stability of any democracy. If people are too scared to vote, or if they lack confidence in their government to bring peace, how will their voices be heard? By discussing how accountability, transparency, and ethics dissuade social confusion, improve democracy, and lessen occurrences of violence, perhaps one can increase the success in the instance of stabilizing a new democracy or reinvigorating an old one. Theoretically resulting in more peaceful governmental transitions; accountability, transparency, and ethics in democracy are a must to build social trust, improve democracy, and reduce violence.

Impartiality in humans is predicted by brain structure of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

The moral force of impartiality (i.e. the equal treatment of all human beings) is imperative for providing justice and fairness. Yet, in reality many people become partial during intergroup interactions; they demonstrate a preferential treatment of ingroup members and a discriminatory treatment of outgroup members. Some people, however, do not show this intergroup bias. The underlying sources of these inter-individual differences are poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that the larger the gray matter volume and thickness of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), the more individuals in the role of an uninvolved third-party impartially punish outgroup and ingroup perpetrators. Moreover, we show evidence for a possible mechanism that explains the impact of DMPFC's gray matter volume on impartiality, namely perspective-taking. Large gray matter volume of DMPFC seems to facilitate equal perspective-taking of all sides, which in turn leads to impartial behavior. This is the first evidence demonstrating that brain structure of the DMPFC constitutes an important source underlying an individual's propensity for impartiality.

Judicial Impartiality and Independence in Divided Societies: An Empirical Analysis of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina

The role of Constitutional Courts in deeply divided societies is complicated by the danger that the salient societal cleavages may influence judicial decision-making and, consequently, undermine judicial independence and impartiality. With reference to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article investigates the influence of ethno-nationalism on judicial behaviour and the extent to which variation in judicial tenure amplifies or dampens that influence. Based on a statistical analysis of an original dataset of the Court’s decisions, we find that the judges do in fact divide predictably along ethno-national lines, at least in certain types of cases, and that these divisions cannot be reduced to a residual loyalty to their appointing political parties. Contrary to some theoretical expectations, however, we find that long-term tenure does little to dampen the influence of ethno-nationalism on judicial behaviour. Moreover, our findings suggest that the longer a judge serves on the Court the more ethno-national affiliation seems to influence her decision-making. We conclude by considering how alternative arrangements for the selection and tenure of judges might help to ameliorate this problem.

Technocratic discourse : a primer

This article describes the linguistic and semantic features of technocratic discourse using a Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) framework. The article goes further to assert that the function of technocratic discourse in public policy is to advocate and promulgate a highly contentious political and economic agenda under the guise of scientific objectivity and political impartiality. We provide strong evidence to support the linguistic description, and the claims of political advocacy, by analyzing a 900-word document about globalization produced by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). Bernard McKenna, Philip Graham

Empathy, neutrality and emotional intelligence: a balancing act for the emotional Einstein

Emotions play a central role in mediation as they help to define the scope and direction of a conflict. When a party to mediation expresses (and hence entrusts) their emotions to those present in a mediation, a mediator must do more than simply listen - they must attend to these emotions. Mediator empathy is an essential skill for communicating to a party that their feelings have been heard and understood, but it can lead mediators into trouble. Whilst there might exist a theoretical divide between the notions of empathy and sympathy, the very best characteristics of mediators (caring and compassionate nature) may see empathy and sympathy merge - resulting in challenges to mediator neutrality. This article first outlines the semantic difference between empathy and sympathy and the role that intrapsychic conflict can play in the convergence of these behavioural phenomena. It then defines emotional intelligence in the context of a mediation, suggesting that only the most emotionally intelligent mediators are able to emotionally connect with the parties, but maintain an impression of impartiality – the quality of remaining ‘attached yet detached’ to the process. It is argued that these emotionally intelligent mediators have the common qualities of strong self-awareness and emotional self-regulation.

Mapping journalism cultures across nations : a comparative study of 18 countries

This article reports key findings from a comparative survey of the role perceptions, epistemological orientations and ethical views of 1800 journalists from 18 countries. The results show that detachment, non-involvement, providing political information and monitoring the government are considered essential journalistic functions around the globe. Impartiality, the reliability and factualness of information, as well as adherence to universal ethical principles are also valued worldwide, though their perceived importance varies across countries. Various aspects of interventionism, objectivism and the importance of separating facts from opinion, on the other hand, seem to play out differently around the globe. Western journalists are generally less supportive of any active promotion of particular values, ideas and social change, and they adhere more to universal principles in their ethical decisions. Journalists from non-western contexts, on the other hand, tend to be more interventionist in their role perceptions and more flexible in their ethical views.