Judging integrity violations and defense strategies: An inquiry into what people’s judgments have to say about integrity

(1)

Willianne Kempenaar s2097656 Master of Public Administration Specialization: Public Management Supervisor: dr. Toon Kerkhoff Second reader: prof. dr. Zeger van der Wal January 2020

Judging integrity violations and defense strategies

(2)

Schoonheid komt voort uit grenzen, altijd.

(3)

Voorwoord

Voor u ligt mijn scriptie waar ik de afgelopen tijd met veel plezier aan gewerkt heb. Het gaf bijzonder veel voldoening om maandenlang met een enkel onderwerp bezig te zijn. Ik genoot wanneer ik besefte dat mijn begrip van het onderwerp steeds dieper werd. Met plezier las ik pagina’s commentaar van allerlei mensen op Nederlandse politici. Het was tamelijk lollig om onfatsoenlijk Nederlands commentaar te mogen vertalen naar onfatsoenlijk Engels commentaar, en dat alles in naam der wetenschap. Het was fijn om te merken dat de methode die ik in gedachten had waardevolle resultaten opleverde. Naarmate de tijd vorderde werd ik steeds enthousiaster over mijn onderwerp en onderzoek. Toch is het goed dat ik er nu een punt achter zet.

Deze scriptie had er niet op deze manier uitgezien als mijn begeleider dr. Toon Kerkhoff mij daar niet op zijn goede wijze bij geholpen had. Onze gesprekken waren leerzaam en verhelderend. Het advies om een goed glas whisky te drinken bij het lezen van berichten op GeenStijl was een gouden zet.

Mijn dank gaat uit naar Dirk Minne en Christine die in hun grenzeloze gastvrijheid op het Friese platteland een perfecte plek boden voor het schrijven van een scriptie. Niet alleen mijn scriptie maar ook mijn beheersing van de Friese taal ging erop vooruit. Dank aan Karin die er al vijftien jaar voor zorgt dat mijn werk netjes opgemaakt is. Zonder haar engelengeduld met plaatjes, figuren en uitlijning zouden mijn werkstukken eruitzien als kleutertekeningen. Dank aan Thom die mij met zijn tips uitdaagde om de waarde van sociale wetenschappen te verdedigen. Mijn grootste dank gaat uit naar Kees, die niet alleen Word begrijpt maar ook mij.

Willianne Kempenaar Januari 2020

(7)

1 You are what you say? Defending your integrity

Politicians need to have integrity: this much is clear. It is unclear however what having integrity exactly means. Consider the societal debate on Stef Blok’s (Minister of Foreign Affairs) remarks about the alleged failure of multicultural societies, which took place in the Netherlands in the summer of 2018. Does having integrity mean a minister cannot consider the multicultural society a failure? Or does integrity mean that a person, also someone in power, says what he thinks? This is just one of the many examples of (alleged) integrity violations followed by a discussion on what integrity exactly means. It is also an example of a situation in which different perceptions of integrity co-exist: some people accept Blok’s behavior, others do not. Blok said he deeply regretted his words and took them back. Indeed, in case politicians are accused of an integrity violation, they are likely to defend themselves. Does having integrity mean that you can take words back that you said earlier? During these societal discussions, people may thus not only evaluate the act of the integrity violation, but also the defense strategy a politician used. Both may influence people’s judgment of the politician. Both judgments may show what people think having integrity means. Besides judgment on the act, this thesis therefore also addresses judgment on the defense strategy. By doing so it wants to gain greater insight into what violations and/or defense strategies lead to what judgments, and what different perceptions of integrity exist. Perceptions of integrity differ from person to person, place to place and time to time: they are contingent and contextual (Kerkhoff, 2013, p. 11), as will be further discussed in chapter 2.

1.1 Integrity violations and defense strategies

In case a person is accused of an integrity violation, he/she is likely to resort to the use of defense strategies. Accusations directed at the alleged offender affect his or her image, reputation, or face. They may lead to a loss of image in the public sphere. People would of course like to avoid any damage to their image, because the latter is important to them (Benoit, 2015, p. 2-3). Politicians may be even more sensitive to it, because it could affect their evaluation ratings or election results. They therefore respond to accusations in a way they think appropriate. They may offer for example explanations or excuses, justifications or rationalizations (ibid). This thesis uses the overarching term ‘defense strategies’: strategies the accused use to defend themselves. Chapter 2 further specifies the different defense strategies and elaborates on why politicians use them, and how they are supposed to work.

(8)

1.2 Judgment of integrity violation and defense strategy

Actors may judge the integrity violation itself (i.e. fraud is bad), or the defense strategy which was used (i.e. justifications of fraud are bad). Therefore, these judgments need to be separated into a reaction on the act itself, and on the defense strategy. Judgments are also further subdivided into three parts, namely aimed at integrity of either a person, role, or system as such. The following examples show how these types of judgment may differ: justifying fraud may lead to negative judgment about the integrity of that person as an individual. At the same time, an actor may find such a justification understandable for someone in the role of politician, which would lead to a more neutral judgment about that politician’s integrity. A second example: bribery may be followed by negative judgment about the system’s integrity (“The system is corrupt so bribery is not surprising”) whereas the person’s integrity may be deemed fine (“He cannot help it because he is part of the system”).

Research question

The above shows that alleged offenders of integrity can be expected to resort to the use of defense strategies. I have also described how both the act of integrity violation itself and defense strategy can lead to certain judgments by people. These judgments may be aimed at the person, role or the system he/she is a part of and reflect a certain idea of integrity. The above therefore leads to the following research question:

How do judgments about individual politician’s behavior and/or defense strategy reflect people’s idea of the integrity of that politician as a person, of his or her role and of the system (s)he is a part of?

In the analysis, there is a slight focus on the possible way in which judgment of defense strategies reflects people’s idea of integrity, because the aim is to see whether defense strategies are relevant to integrity at all.

1.3 Academic and societal relevance

The answer to the question above is academically relevant for several reasons. First, integrity is a wide contextual concept which denotes different meanings and violations. This thesis shows both the contextuality and variety of meanings, because it creates insight into how the concept of integrity gains meaning from discussions around integrity scandals and defense

(9)

Huberts, 2018; Kerkhoff & Overeem, 2018; Kerkhoff, 2016; Nieuwenkamp, 2012) and it has given insight into what the perceptions of integrity were in certain situations, and how perceptions have changed over time. Some researchers do not only address politicians’ perceptions of integrity, but also those of more or less famous citizens (e.g. talk show host Van Nieuwkerk in Kerkhoff & Overeem, 2018, p. 92). Allen & Birch (2011) and Rose (2014) discuss citizens’ perceptions too, although the latter’s research addresses public probity instead of integrity. This thesis builds on previous research as it analyzes both politicians’ and citizens’ perceptions of integrity. Regarding the latter group however, it adds something new to the existing research because it uses opinions voiced in (online) newspapers and on participatory journalism platforms such as GeenStijl and Joop. These groups are often excluded when citizen’s perceptions are assessed.

Second, this question addresses a gap in the research on integrity and defense strategies. Little research has been done on the use of defense strategies in political situations of personal misconduct or integrity violations. This thesis adds to work by Benoit (2015) who does address the above, but does not distinguish between judgment about person, role or system. By providing insight into the possible impact of defense strategies on the public’s judgment about person, role or system, this thesis fills the aforementioned gap. Chapter 2 will elaborate on the gap in existing research.

The societal relevance of an answer to the research question relates to greater insight into citizens’ opinions and enabling a more critical stance towards the use of defense strategies. Related to greater insight in citizens’ opinions, I will first assess some of the public opinion on politician’s behavior and defense strategies, which will clarify what ideas people hold about integrity. This generates some insight into the levels of trust in government and politicians. It also illustrates potential gaps between politicians or government and citizens. Second, debates in the public sphere on the desirability of some defense strategies benefit from a clear(er) understanding of the phenomenon. More insight into the use of defense strategies makes it easier to criticize certain strategies and makes it less likely people will be deceived by them. Third, as Kerkhoff & Overeem (2018) have shown, integrity needs to part of an open, inclusive, democratic debate. This means the inclusion of groups of people besides those in power. This thesis adds to such an inclusion because it incorporates groups that are often forgotten, namely those active on online platforms. Concluding, society wants politicians who have integrity. Greater knowledge about what various actors mean by it, or how politicians may cover up integrity scandals, can bring society closer to this goal.

(10)

1.4 Design and method

Design and case selection

This research performs a multiple case analysis for which two different cases will be analyzed. A case study with a limited number of cases allows for a thorough in-depth analysis of relevant defense strategies, judgments and implicit perceptions of integrity. The cases include politicians who have been accused of integrity violations after 2010. This enables the use of Twitter and online forums as sources of public opinion. The politicians did not have to leave office due to their integrity violation. The defense strategies they used will be taken from their contributions to parliamentary debates, media interviews or other statements.

To asses judgments aimed at person, role or system, official parliamentary documents, Twitter, papers and online discussion platforms will be used. Regarding the newspapers, NRC Handelsblad and Telegraaf are included. The selected discussion platforms are GeenStijl and Joop. These sources are of such different nature that different judgments can be expected.

Method

Once the data is collected, I will perform a qualitative content analysis of all the materials. It will be a textual analysis of what people have written or said. Two variables are especially relevant in the analysis. First, the type(s) of defense strategies that the politicians use. Chapter 2 provides a typology of defense strategies based on earlier research by other scholars. This typology will be used to categorize the different strategies found in the cases. The second relevant variable is the judgment of person, role and system. These judgments are considered to be part of the public opinion. Public opinion is a contested concept: scholars do not agree on its exact meaning or way to measure it. For this introductory section to the method it suffices to state that, a) public opinion exists, and b) one way to measure it is the aggregation of attitudes of a population (Price, 2008, p.18). Chapter 3 further discusses the operationalization of judgment.

1.5 Structure of this thesis

Chapter 2 discusses the relevant theoretical concepts and explores the possible relation between these concepts. It includes the concept of integrity, the variety of defense strategies and the possible judgments people may have about these strategies. Chapter 3 concerns the design and methods used to answer the research question. It elaborates upon the meaning of public opinion,

(11)

Afterwards, the case analyses follow in chapter 4 and 5. Two cases will be analyzed, focusing on the different judgments issued in these cases and how these are illustrative for the different perceptions of integrity. Chapter 6 provides an answer to the research question together with a discussion of the results.

(12)

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Introduction

The previous chapter has introduced the topic of this thesis and discussed the research question and its relevance. In this chapter, the relevant concepts and theoretical relations between them are explained. I elaborate on integrity (2.2.1) and offer a typology of defense strategies (2.2.2). Paragraph 2.3 consists of an exploration of possible relations between acts of integrity violation, defense strategies and judgment of a person, politician or system.

2.2 Conceptualization of the main concepts 2.2.1 Integrity

Integrity is part of what constitutes good governance, for which other values such as effectiveness, responsiveness and lawfulness matter as well (Huberts, 2018, p. 10). Although everybody agrees integrity is something to strive for, people have different perspectives on what it means when a politician or organization has it (ibid, p. 2). Integrity may refer to concepts such as wholeness and coherence, professional responsibility and moral reflection, but also to values such as incorruptibility (ibid). Some seem to equate integrity with ethics (De Graaf & Van der Wal, 2010, p. 2). Integrity may refer to a specific value, like incorruptibility, but is also used as an umbrella concept (Lasthuizen, Huberts & Heres, 2011, p. 400). It is thus a wide concept of which people have different perceptions (Kerkhoff & Overeem, 2018, p. 13). Even if people would for example agree that integrity means ‘wholeness’, they may still disagree on what it means for a politician to be ‘whole’. Behavior which at one point in time meets the demands of integrity does not have to do so some time later. Also, an integrity violation in one place may not be considered a violation at another place. Integrity is thus a contingent and contextual concept (Kerkhoff, 2013, p. 11). Nevertheless, for the purpose of this thesis a working definition of integrity is necessary. This thesis uses Huberts’ definition: “Integrity is […] the quality of acting in accordance or harmony with relevant moral values, norms, and rules” (Huberts, 2018, p. 3). This definition thus encompasses both a legalistic and non-legalistic view on integrity (Kerkhoff, 2016, p. 10). This thesis assumes integrity can be a quality of both individuals and organizations, using work by Lasthuizen et al. (2011, p. 387). A possible discussion about the meaning of integrity of course often concerns the question

(13)

what exactly these relevant moral values, norms and rules are, for whom, and in what context (ibid).

2.2.2 Defense strategies

When people, in particular politicians, are accused of an integrity violation, their image or reputation may be damaged. This negatively affects that persons’ persuasiveness because of decreased credibility and trustworthiness (Benoit, 2015, p. 2-3). It can also impact one’s likeability. Moreover, the alleged offender may not be able to do his or her job anymore. Defense strategies are attempts to ‘save’ our image or reputation (Benoit, 2015, p. 3). They may be used as an attempt to neutralize accusations.

Figure 2.01: the possible effects of accusations and defense strategies on someone’s image (Benoit, 2015)1

Accusations generally consist of two components (Pomerantz, 1978): stating that the alleged offender committed a certain act and stating that the act is offensive. Benoit (2015, p. 10) affirms that attacks have two elements: blame and offensiveness. A reply to an attack has to address either or both of those elements. When defending yourself, you can say you are not to blame for a certain act. You did not do it, or your act was inevitable and therefore you cannot be blamed for it. You can also deny offensiveness: in that case you may not be denying blame,

1_{Icon made by Freepik from flaticon.com} Accusation of integrity violation Persuasive power, credibility, likeability, employability Image, reputation Defense strategy or strategies

(14)

but instead you try to convince your audience what you did is not offensive. You may also respond to both elements: in that case you are affirming both blame and offensiveness.

Excuses and justifications are two types of defense strategies which correspond to these two components of an attack. McGraw (1990) defines defense strategies as accounts: “accounts are the explanations offered to provide a more acceptable or satisfactory explanation of the event than that contained in a worst-case reading” (p. 120). An excuse denies partial or full responsibility: it addresses the blame component. A justification denies that the consequences of an act are offensive or undesirable: it addresses the offensiveness component (ibid, p. 122). Benoit (2015, p. 43) mentions other accounts, such as apologies, while McGraw limits herself to excuses and justifications. An apology differs from an excuse: when apologizing, someone admits his behavior is wrong and accepts responsibility. An excuse denies responsibility, although it confirms the behavior is undesirable. It is understandable that McGraw does not mention strategies like apology or denial: her paper focuses on strategies specifically for situations in which a politician has to defend an unpopular policy decision. Denial or apology are not as applicable in those situations of predicament.

Benoit (2015) has developed a typology of image repair strategies, which is more encompassing than McGraw’s excuses and justifications. Image repair strategies do not only include excuses and justifications, but also apologies which he calls mortifications. Benoit’s typology is not as detailed as Schönbach’s (1990) list of almost 150 types of possible reactions during escalations or conflict. These 150 types are divided among four cardinal types: concessions, excuses, justifications and refusals. He defines excuses and justifications in a similar way as McGraw (Schönbach, 1990, p. 79-80). Concessions are comparable to the idea of apologies discussed above, but Schönbach’s taxonomy also includes what he calls “peripheral concessions” (ibid, p. 188). The fourth type, refusals, is similar to what Benoit names denial. Schönbach however also subsumes reactions like irrelevant talk or silence under refusals.

This thesis works with the term defense strategies instead of image repair strategies, political accounts, techniques of neutralization or excuses and justifications. They all fall under the umbrella of defense strategies. Moreover, using the term defense strategies enables the combination of work by several authors into one typology of different defense strategies. This typology will use Benoit’s list of image repair strategies as it base (see table 2.02), because he more or less includes (the relevant parts of) the enumerations by McGraw. Schönbach’s peripheral concessions and refusals are added to Benoit’s list (see table 2.03), because they

(15)

Table 2.02: Benoit’s typology of image repair strategies (Benoit, 2015, p. 28):

General strategy Tactic Example

Denial

Simple denial “I did not steal money from the public”

Shift blame “I did not commit fraud, but he did”

Evade responsibility2

Provocation “I did embezzle money, but a friend forced me to do so”

Defeasibility “I did receive a gift, but I did not know I was obliged to _{declare it”} Accident “I accidentally told him some confidential information”

Good intentions “I broke the rules because I had the intention to help _someone” Reduce

offensiveness3

Bolstering “Think of all the times I put the public interest above my _{private interest”} Minimization “I stole some money, but it was very little”

Differentiation “I did not steal money, I just borrowed it for a while”

Transcendence “I did bribe a criminal, but it was aimed to protect the _{higher goal of the public’s safety”} Attack accuser “This politician accuses me of waste of resources, but look _{at all the times he committed fraud”} Compensation “Because I discriminated you, I will donate a sum of money _{to an NGO combatting discrimination”} Corrective action “Because I stole €1000, I will pay it back”

Mortification

(Apology) “I’m so sorry I treated you indecently. I regret intimidating you”

Table 2.03: Four reactions of Schönbach’s list of possible reactions during escalation or conflict (1990, p. 188):

General strategy Tactic Example

Peripheral concessions

Willingness to report on the event in question without excuse, justification or refutational comment

“I have heard of the accusations at my address”

Acknowledgment of negative aspects of the failure event, but no concession of own involvement

“Embezzlement of money is indeed a severe violation of integrity”

Refusals Irrelevant talk “Are you enjoying today’s _weather?”

Silence -

2.3 Relation between act, defense strategy and judgment

The second part of this chapter shows why judgment of act and/or defense strategy may be expected, and it elaborates on judgment about person, role and system. Furthermore, it discusses possible judgments people may have when confronted with integrity violations and/or defense strategies. These possible judgments illustrate the variety of ideas of integrity that they reflect.

2_{Corresponding to what McGraw calls ‘excuses’} 3_{Corresponding to what McGraw calls ‘justifications’}

(16)

2.3.1 Act and defense strategy lead to judgment

Research has been done on the consequences of scandals on politicians’ evaluations (e.g. Funk, 1996) and political support (e.g. Maier, 2011), and on the impact of partisanship (e.g. Wagner, Tarlov, & Vivyan, 2014; Blais, Gidengil, Fournier, Nevitte, Everitt & Kim, 2010) and politicians’ communication (e.g. Mölders, Van Quaquebeke, & Paladino, 2017) on political judgments. Although there is research on political behavior or communication which may influence judgment by citizens, none of this specifically addresses integrity violations. This thesis thus adds to earlier research by discussing judgments following an alleged integrity violation.

Regarding defense strategies, McGraw (1990; 1991) does address consequences of these but focuses on their use in case of unpopular policy decisions and not in situations of personal misconduct or integrity violations. Schönbach (1990) discusses a range of possible defense strategies but views their effect in the context of (escalation of) conflict in general. Based on both of their work, however, a relationship between defense strategy and judgment may be expected. Moreover, because of the persuasive nature of defense strategies, it can be assumed they aim at influencing people’s judgment. Benoit (2015, p. 4) presents defense strategies (although he calls them image repair strategies) explicitly as a form of communication. Communication between people means they are in a process in which a sender sends a message to an audience. The audience responds, although perhaps not in an interactive way comparable to a dialogue between a few people. Nevertheless, there will be feedback from the audience and the sender may be interested in it. This may be especially so when the sender is a politician and has communicated a defense strategy, because he/she may want to know if the strategy is successful or not. Defense strategies often aim at creating understanding of why someone did or did not do something, or what circumstances made him or her do it. The accused (sender) may also try to convince the accuser (audience) that his or her action is not undesirable, or that he/she is not responsible for it. There is no guarantee however that these defense strategies evoke the responses and judgments hoped for.

2.3.2 Judgment aimed at person, role or system

This thesis will not only distinguish between judgment of act or defense strategy, but also between judgment aimed at person, role or system. A national politician in the Netherlands accused of an integrity violation may not only be judged on a personal level – “I find this person corrupt” or on a role-related level – “I find this politician corrupt” – but his or her

(17)

judgment about a person, their role, or the system are not necessarily the same even though they can of course be linked. Moreover, these judgments may be based on the integrity violation – “I find this person corrupt because he embezzled money” – or on the defense strategy – “I find this person corrupt because he denied committing fraud”.

McGraw (1991) has focused on one of these subdivisions as she describes how excuses and justifications affect satisfaction ratings and evaluations of a person. People may also find e.g. justifications understandable for some in the role of politician. Huberts (2018, p. 10) mentions the importance of integrity for the legitimacy and credibility of the governance system. Integrity violations thus affect people’s view on the legitimacy and credibility of the

system as well. There is no research however which combines integrity violations, defense

strategies and following judgment aimed at person, role and system. By doing so, this thesis adds to earlier research.

Many discussions about politicians’ integrity are essentially about the distinction between what is public and what is private (Kerkhoff, 2016, p. 10; Kerkhoff & Overeem, 2018, p. 16). Judgments of an act or defense strategy are therefore likely to be motivated by this distinction as well. The standards for public behavior are often higher, or in any case different, than for private behavior. This thesis will leave this point aside and instead focus on the distinction between person, role and system to understand judgment.

The figure and example below show that judgment can concern the individual person him- or herself (A/B1), the person in his or her role as a politician (A/B2) or the system of which the person is a part (A/B3). The analytical separation of these types of judgments is visualized in figure 2.03:

(18)

Figure 2.03: judgment concerns the act (a) and/or the defense strategy (b)4

Judgment about the person may deviate from judgment about the system. To understand this analytical distinction this thesis draws from work by Johnston (1996) on the definition of corruption. He comments upon two definitions of corruption, namely the classical and modern, and proposes a new, third one: the neo-classical. The classical definition of corruption focuses on “the moral vitality of whole societies” whereas the modern definition is more a “behavior classification […] in which specific actions are measured against a variety of standards” (p. 321). The neo-classical definition Johnston proposes incorporates elements from both the classical and modern definitions. From a neo-classical perspective, corruption is not only a problem residing in specific actions, but it also concerns the overall moral health of society,

Examples:

A/B1: Based on this act/defense strategy, I find this person good/bad. A/B2: Based on this act/defense strategy, I find this politician good/bad.

A/B3: I find this politician’s act/defense strategy a symptom for a good/bad system. (II) Defense strategy used by

accused politician (I) Act by politician

(presumed integrity violation)

(III)

Judgment by people A: judgment about act

1. person 2. role 3. system

B: judgment about defense strategy

2. role 3. system 1. person

(19)

i.e. “the broader processes through which consent is to be won, and influence and authority are to be used” (p. 329-330).

Although corruption is not necessarily the same as an integrity scandal (see paragraph 2.2.1 in this chapter; it is one of the possible integrity violations), the analytical distinction Johnston makes is still useful. The different definitions of corruption point to the possibility of judgment on different levels. One’s individual behavior may be all right, but people may still find it harmful for the moral health of society. Someone may find that the politician has integrity, but because of the system or society he/she works in, an integrity violation was inevitable. The other way around is possible too: the behavior of a politician may be negatively judged but people may still find the society or system morally healthy.

2.3.3 Act, judgment, and ideas of integrity

This paragraph explores the relationship between act and judgment, so that it is not only easily recognizable during the case analysis, but also distinguishable from the relationship between defense strategy and judgment.

Work by Funk (1996) demonstrates that politicians involved in scandals can expect negative responses. Moreover, one of Schönbach’s (1990, p. 31, p. 176) findings states that “the greater the severity of a failure event, the more severe will be, on average, the opponents’ reaction towards the actor during the reproach phase”. Failure event in the context of this thesis means integrity violation. Although it is difficult to measure severity of an integrity violation, the expectation based on Schönbach’s work is intuitively appealing and commonsensical.

There is no literature listing possible judgments of people about integrity violations, most likely because there are too many possibilities. Table 2.04 below, however, gives a short overview of some possible judgments. The table shows how people may judge, for example when a politician has gotten drunk in private time. It also shows that judgment may differ between person, role and system. These judgments reflect different ideas of integrity. Giving these possibilities works as a primer for the case analysis, because being aware of some options might make the researcher and reader more susceptible to other as well.

(20)

Table 2.04: possible relations between integrity violation (act) and judgment

Integrity violation Judgment directed at Example

Private time misconduct Person “As an individual it is acceptable to get drunk once in a while”

Role “As a politician it is not okay to get drunk”

System

“Our political system is broken because we accept it when

politicians get drunk”

2.3.4 Defense strategy, judgment, and ideas of integrity

From the literature (e.g. McGraw, 1990; 1991, Benoit, 2015, Schönbach, 1990) it can reasonably be expected that different defense strategies evoke different judgments. McGraw (1990; 1991) has reported an effect of blame-avoidance strategies such as excuses and justifications on the public’s judgment. She found that offering justifications leads to more favorable evaluations and higher satisfaction ratings than expressing excuses (McGraw, 1990, p. 127). She has also shown that a certain strategy may be more “effective” than another one, depending on for example the situation, context and timing (McGraw 1990; 1991). Benoit (2015, p. 73) remarks that initially lying during the process of defending yourself undermines the success of defense strategies. Another expectation is that people get angrier the longer it takes for a politician to respond to the integrity violations. This will probably lead to more negative judgments.

(21)

Figure 2.02: process of sending messages and receiving feedback (upper part of the figure from Benoit, 2015)5

Paragraph 2.3.1 has explained why a response to a defense strategy can be expected. These responses may take the form of judgments, as figure 2.02 illustrates. Judgments are assumed to be positive, neutral or negative. There is no academic literature yet that gives an overview of possible judgments following the different defense strategies. Table 2.05 is therefore presented to show some possibilities. Again, just as in table 2.04, the judgments reflect different ideas of integrity.

5_{Icons made by Freepik from flaticon.com}

Sender (politician)

Defense strategy or strategies Message

Response: Judgment about sender

Audience

On role On system

(22)

Table 2.05: possible relations between defense strategies and judgment

Defense strategy Judgment directed at Content of possible judgment Denial Person He covers up the truth which is (not) a good _{character trait.}

Role A politician should (not) deny something _{which he clearly is responsible for} System People in this system never take responsibility _{for what they have done, which is (not) good}

Evade responsibility Person

It is better (not) to take responsibility immediately instead of first denying and later affirming

Role It is (not) ok for this politician to evade _{responsibility: others do not take it either} System The lack of responsibility (does not) show(s) _{the corruptibility of the system}

Reduce offensiveness Person It is (not) good he draws attention to the public _{interest that he served} Role It is (not) his job to make things look less _{offensive than they really are}

System People in power just do not care about possibly offending those that they should serve, which is (not) bad

Corrective action Person He is trying to make up for what he did wrong; _{it is (not) convincing} Role I find it (not) good that this politician is really _{trying to make up for what he did}

System Correcting what went wrong shows the intrinsic motivation of the system, which is (not) bad

Mortification Person It is (not) good to be honest and apologize

Role

Everyone makes mistakes, also in their professional lives, and it is (not) good to be honest about these mistakes and say you are sorry

System The lack of a real apology shows how little _{The Hague really cares, which is (not) good}

Peripheral concession Person He does not dare to comment on what he did, _{which shows a lack of courage and is (not) bad}

Role

It is obvious that our politicians spent a lot of tax money on media training, which is (not) bad

System The real issue is not addressed nor taken responsibility for, showing the tardiness of the system, which is (not) good

Refusals Person Silence is (not) good: it is too late to do _{anything else}

Role Politicians are trained in evading answers, which is (not) good, so this response should not surprise us

System Silent politicians are a symptom of how they can get away with everything in the system, which is (not) good

(23)

3 Design and Method

Paragraph 3.2 introduces the research design and its justification. Afterwards, paragraph 3.3 discusses operationalization of the relevant variables. Paragraph 3.4 elaborates on the method of data collection and analysis, and the ethics, reliability and replicability of it.

3.2 Research design and case selection

Design

To answer the research question, this thesis performs two in-depth case analyses. Integrity is a contextual concept, therefore only an in-depth case analysis with special attention to person, place and time can give meaning to the concept. This research on the use of defense strategies in the context of integrity violations is new and exploratory, which justifies the little number of cases: it enables a word-for-word analysis of what people think about integrity violations and defense strategies. The careful consideration of words and phrases enables a good view of what people’s perceptions of integrity are. The relatively low number of two cases is therefore required to, in the given time, perform such a type of analysis. Not only will this give greater insight into the particular cases, but it also points towards possible relations between act, defense strategy and judgment which future research can further test.

Case selection

The choice for cases of integrity scandals was made because these scandals are surrounded by social upheaval in which debates on the meaning of integrity arise (Kerkhoff & Overeem, 2018, p. 17). This thesis investigates people’s idea of integrity when confronted with (supposed) violations and defense strategies. Integrity scandals are exactly those situations in which different perceptions of integrity become visible (ibid, p. 19) and are therefore providing a useful mechanism to get access to different perceptions of integrity.

The case selection is limited to the Netherlands since 1945 in order to fit in the project “Corruption and Integrity” of the Centre for Public Values and Ethics. The cases are further refined to quite recent ones (2010 >) because this enables the use of online platforms of participatory journalism. This provides a broader scope of insight and serves as an addition to the academic research done so far. Both cases played on the national level so the availability

(24)

of data will not be a problem, given the discussions on online platforms. Moreover, they were surrounded by quite an extensive societal debate, which means that probably many people had opinions about what happened. It is thus possible to yield data from different places and sources and this enables me to compare and contrast these. This is especially useful for determining what people’s (different) perceptions of integrity are. Another requirement which the two cases fulfill as well, is the implicit or explicit use of defense strategies by the accused politician.

This thesis will not lead to generalizable causal inferences and conclusions. The cases are not similar enough to qualify as similar-case design. Variables such as type of integrity violation, age, gender and experience of the politicians differ. These variables may influence judgment of people too (Schönbach, 1990, pp. 35-43) but are not controlled for in this research. It is therefore not possible to arrive at any convincing causal effects between act, defense strategy and judgment. This, however, does not affect the strength of the answer to the research question, because the emphasis is on ideas of integrity reflected by judgments and not on effects of act or defense strategy on judgments.

Cases

Table 3.01 lists the cases which will be analyzed in the chapters below.

Table 3.01: case selection

Case (year) Function Political Party Integrity violation _(alleged) Still in office?

Stef Blok (2018) Minister of Foreign _Affairs VVD Hard to categorize using Huberts’

typology1 Yes

Anne-Wil Duthler

(2019 Senator VVD Conflict of interest

No, but not because of integrity

violation2 1: although Blok’s alleged violation of integrity is hard to categorize using Hubert’s (2018) typology, it is especially a good case to study in this thesis. The discussion around the alleged violation was in part explicitly about whether Blok fulfilled certain requirements that people think are related to integrity (and violations of it).

2: Duthler left the Senate in June 2019, as was planned. Her leave was not related to the alleged integrity violation. She was removed from the VVD party in the Senate because of her alleged integrity violation.

(25)

3.3 Operationalization of variables 3.3.1 Independent variable: defense strategy

Chapter 2 has provided a list of eighteen different defense strategies. Politicians may use one or more of these strategies for their defense. The case analysis includes the defense strategies which were found in the different cases, with a justification why they should be categorized as these specific defense strategies.

3.3.2 Dependent variable: judgment6

Public opinion

This thesis assumes judgment is part of the public opinion. So many men, so many minds: ironically this is not only true for the content of public opinion but also for the meaning of the concept itself. The two most contrasting definitions of public opinion are as follows. Public opinion may be viewed as the sum of individual opinions (Glynn et. al, 2018, p. 13-14; Diamanti, 2011, p. 2168). This view is widely shared, partly because it allows for a relatively straightforward measurement of public opinion. This instance of methodological individualism contrasts with a more constructivist view on public opinion. Within the latter, scholars see the public as a collective and public opinion as collectively constructed (Rosenberg, 2015, p. 243).

This thesis assumes individuals have opinions about integrity violations and subsequent defense strategies. Some of these opinions contain judgment. These individual opinions can be assessed. To get an idea of the variety of opinions present in the public sphere, different sources of public opinion will be used for the analysis. Price has identified a number of actors relevant to the development of public opinion (see table 3.02) (Price, 2008, p. 16). Variety may be expected, as indicated by Johnston (1996, p. 323) who writes that “public opinion and cultural standards [pertaining to corruption] vary among segments of society”.

6_{The dependent variable of this thesis is ‘judgment’ and thus also ‘the ideas people hold about (the meaning of)} integrity because the first is assumed to reflect the latter.

(26)

Table 3.02: Possible actors relevant in the development of public opinion (from Price, 2008, p. 16) Political leaders

Technical experts Interest groups Reporters and editors Attentive publics Mass audiences

This thesis uses Price’s list of actors to categorize the different groups in society that might have something to say, i.e. where different judgments on either person, role, system, or a combination of those may be found. These actors are the population of interest.

Population of interest: political leaders, reporters and the public

The population of interest in this thesis are political leaders, reporters and editors, and the public. A distinction between what Price calls attentive publics and mass audiences is not made: they will be grouped as ‘the public’. Considering the scope of this thesis, opinions from technical experts and interest groups are not included.

To assess judgments by political leaders, first their statements on Twitter are analyzed. The focus is on members of parliament, and mostly on the leaders of the thirteen parties. If the leader was not the (only) spokesperson on the particular topic of the case, another member of parliament is regarded as political leader as well. Statements from person or party Twitter accounts are complemented by, if applicable, statements by political leaders in online news sources, papers or magazines. When possible, data will also be collected from official documents published by parliament, such as notes of parliamentary meetings.

Judgments by reporters and editors will be taken from opiniated articles in two large newspapers in the Netherlands: Telegraaf and NRC Handelsblad. Due to the background of these papers, the journalists and columnists they hire, and the audience they cater to, the nature of their judgments will probably differ. Other Dutch newspapers are excluded. The small number of newspapers enables careful consideration of each judgment in the newspaper. It offers the opportunity for a true in-depth analysis of what people write, and do not write. Videos published online by these papers are not included in the analysis. Articles mentioning judgments by political leaders will not be considered, because their opinions are already included in the part of the analysis mentioned above.

(27)

The judgment by (parts of) the public will be analyzed using comments published on websites ‘GeenStijl’ and ‘Joop’. These can both be categorized as online forms of participatory journalism (Debatin, 2012, p. 69). Members of these communities heavily comment upon published news articles, which leads to enough data to analyze and draw conclusions from. Only news articles which have a direct link to the integrity violation or defense strategy are selected. Articles commenting on someone who commented on a violation or strategy are thus not included in the analysis, because the link is indirect. From each relevant article, the oldest 20 comments are included for analysis, with a maximum of 100 comments for each platform. The aim of using GeenStijl and Joop for this type of research is to provide a new addition to already existing literature. Participatory journalism platforms have high potential of showing public opinions differentiating from common newspapers, which make them especially useful for researching diverse opinions on integrity. These websites are obviously not a representative sample of the different opinions in society on integrity violations and subsequent defense strategies, because they are particular subgroups. The focus on GeenStijl and Joop enables me however to spend sufficient time on the in-depth analysis of what visitors to these websites say, and do not say, and what the possible differences and similarities between these two sources are.

All in all, the different sources of opinion addressed above presumably show a range of different judgments about integrity violations and subsequent defense strategies and thus a range of different ideas about integrity. A good understanding of integrity requires the inclusion of as much relevant actors as possible, although not every opinion can be included due to a limited scope. Actors on online journalism platforms are often forgotten and thus excluded from debates around integrity. This thesis includes this part of the public and thus contributes to a better understanding of integrity. The public, together with political leaders and reporters, form a population of interest encompassing a wide variety of opinions, which works well enough for this exploratory type of research.

(28)

Table 3.03: summary of research design

Case Politician: accused of integrity _violation

Judgment of § Violation itself _{§ Defense strategy}

Actors Political leaders Reporters and editors General public

Population of interest Members of parliament

§ Journalists § Columnists

§ Letters from readers

§ GeenStijl § Joop Advantages First-hand perspective on alleged integrity violations

Professional opinion makers

with diverse backgrounds Directly expressed opinions from ‘regular people’

Possible disadvantages

Only statements by party leaders or relevant spokespersons are considered

A limited number of sources is

considered Subgroups: not representative

3.4 Data collection and analysis

Method of data collection

To fulfill the requirements of replicability and reliability of the research, a detailed search strategy is developed. This includes the relevant time period, useful search terms and relevant websites, databases and archives. The relevant time period for case ‘Blok’ is July 10th_–

September10th, 2018. For case ‘Duthler’ data the relevant period is considered to be between January 1st_{, 2011 and May 21}st_{, 2019. Examples of useful search terms are {last name of}

accused politician}, {political party} {relevant keyword such as ‘Suriname’ for case Blok, or ‘Eerste Kamer’ for case Duthler}. Judgments by politicians are mostly taken from websites. Judgments by reporters are mostly obtained from the LexisNexis database or the Telegraaf archive. Judgments by visitors to Geenstijl and Joop are collected from these online forums. Appendix A and B show the detailed strategy for each operationalized indicator of public opinion. Regarding the ethics of the data collection, I use publicly available material from the

(29)

internet that anyone can access. To ensure anonymity as good as possible, author- or usernames are not shown. Therefore, I see no ethical objections against this research.

Method of data analysis

This thesis will conduct a mostly qualitative data analysis. I will interpret the different statements and categorize these as positive, neutral or negative judgment of person, role or system. The method I use is time-consuming and difficult but adds a new dimension to existing research into possible ideas people have about integrity when confronted with integrity violations and defense strategies. My interpretation of the judgments needs to be as open, accessible and traceable to readers and other researchers as possible so as to ensure reliability and replicability. Table 3.04 below is developed for this purpose.

The internal validity is secured through the careful operationalization (see above) of the concepts that are ‘measured’. The extensive discussion of defense strategies and examples of judgments about person, role and system in chapter 2, enables recognition and categorization during the case analysis. It is thus likely that the analysis measures what the theoretical concepts entail.

Table 3.04: example of table for analysis

ID1_{NRC0 (test)}

Judgment (=J) on integrity? Yes

Judgment about act (=A)? Yes, negative (A) J > person x

(A) J > role Minister should not show this behavior (A) J > system x

Judgment about defense strategy (=DS)? No (DS) J > person x

(DS) J > role x (DS) J > system x

(30)

Statement (Dutch) “Een minister mag dit niet zeggen” Statement (English) “A minister is not allowed to say this”

Remarks Emphasis on role

1: ID also includes information about article such as title, date, publication and author. See Appendix D.

Each interpretation shows the statements on which it is based. Articles, comments and statements are all in Dutch. Textual analysis will be done based on the original Dutch text, but for the accessibility of this thesis the relevant parts will be translated.

Each article and comment will be analyzed using this table, so the argumentation of this thesis can be traced which leads to higher validity. These analyses can be found in Appendix D. Chapter 4 and 5 give a synthesis of the tables in the appendix. This will be a mostly qualitative synthesis, but it will also include table 3.05 below and some graphs, which give a quantitative overview.

Table 3.05: Quantitative information on judgment in cases, per medium

Number of articles

Articles with judgment on integrity

Articles with judgment on act

Articles with judgment on defense strategy Medium

# of judgments Total Person Role Ambivalent System Act

Defense strategy

(31)

4 Stef’s summer: about the success of Suriname and the multi-cultural

society

On July 10, 2018 during the Touch Dutch Base meeting for Dutch nationals employed at international organizations, minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok gave a short speech. Afterwards, there was some room for a Q&A session. This session kept Blok (and some civil servants) busy for the remaining part of summer, because some of his answers fueled a heated discussion about a presumed loss of integrity. This chapter discusses what happened during that session, how papers, politicians and other people responded and how Blok defended himself. The second part of this chapter gives an overview of how people judged Blok’s act and his defense strategy.

4.2 Case description

The Touch Dutch Base meeting was by invitation only and was inaccessible to the press. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had organized the meeting. One week later, on July 18, the Dutch television show Zembla published footage of this Q&A session (Zembla, 2018). During this session, Blok spoke about the possibility of a successful multicultural society, xenophobia and the categorization of Suriname as a failed state (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921). Regarding the first two, Blok said: “I have a very pragmatic attitude towards xenophobia. […] Give me an example of a multiethnic or multicultural society, where the indigenous inhabitants still live, in which people peacefully live together. I don’t know any example” (ibid).7_{He also stated that}

“somewhere deep in our genes is probably programmed that we want a clear, defined group of people to hunt and live with. And that we are not very good at connecting with people who are strange to us.” (ibid).8_{Moreover, Blok categorized Suriname as a failed state, which according}

to him is mostly due to ethnic divisions (ibid).9_{Blok also said that he thought it would not be}

7_{“Over xenofobie ben ik, vrees ik, zeer pragmatisch. Ik heb de vraag uitgezet op mijn ministerie maar die doe ik} hier ook: noem mij een voorbeeld van een multi-etnische of multiculturele samenleving, waar de oorspronkelijke bevolking nog woont. Dus dan vallen Australië̈ en de Verenigde Staten af want daar is de oorspronkelijke bevolking uitgeroeid. Multi- etnische, multiculturele samenleving, waar de oorspronkelijke bevolking nog loopt en waar een vreedzaam samenlevingsverband is. Ik ken hem niet.”

8_{“Waarschijnlijk zit ergens diep in onze genen dat we een overzichtelijke groep willen hebben om mee te jagen} of om een dorpje te onderhouden. En dat we niet goed in staat zijn om een binding aan te gaan met ons

onbekende mensen.”

(32)

possible to evenly divide incoming migrants among the EU member states, because Eastern European countries would never agree (ibid).10

The publication was immediately followed by critique, which was mostly aimed at Blok’s remarks on the failure of multicultural societies and the state of Suriname. Many people disapproved of Blok’s behavior. They found it offensive, immoral and/or not professional. Blok’s integrity was questioned. Blok was heavily criticized by members of parliament (both coalition and opposition), (academic) experts, interest groups such as Stichting Vluchteling and

Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland, and some countries, most notably Suriname and Curaçao.

Journalists and other citizens commented upon Blok’s remarks as well. This thesis only considers comments from members of parliament, journalists and other citizens.

Blok’s first response

The round of critique described above took place at almost the same time as Blok’s first response to the publication. Blok had received a message from Zembla the evening before publication of the footage. He knew excuses would be needed (Keultjes, 2018). Blok sent a letter to parliament on July 18, explaining his statements at the meeting on July 10 (Blok, 2018). In this letter, he stated that his goal during the Q&A session had been to spark a reaction from the audience.11_{In the letter he admitted that the phrases he used were “too sharp”. He}

regretted that he had offended people. He also elaborated on what he meant when he said that Suriname is a failed state. He did not refer to the general, international accepted definition of a failed state. He just wanted to point to the fact that in Suriname, ethnic background is still very decisive for the political relations in the country. Blok gave a short interview to the NOS as well, stating the same as above (NOS, 2018).

Blok’s second response and parliamentary debate

Members of parliament Ploumen and Wilders formally addressed questions to the minister on July 19th_{and 20}th_{(Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2018Z14280; Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2848).}

Blok’s second round of response concerns his answers to Ploumen’s and Wilder’s questions (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921; Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2018Z14280, see appendix C, paragraph 5 and 6). Journalists and other citizens contributed to news articles, opinionated

10_{“Ik denk niet dat het gaat lukken om centraal op Europees niveau af te dwingen dat ieder land even veel} vluchtelingen gaat accepteren. Oost-Europeanen gaan er nooit mee akkoord.”

(33)

pieces or comments on websites. Blok’s response to Ploumen and Wilders, and contributions from journalists and other citizens are discussed in paragraph 4.3 and 4.4.

Parliament was in recess till the end of summer, so a parliamentary debate on the issue did not take place until September. Perhaps this made a big difference for Blok: not only did he have plenty of time to reflect on and respond to what he said, but members of parliament also had plenty of time to cool down – if needed. The critique remained, however. On September 4, 2018, Kuzu (DENK) asked for a debate in parliament with minister Blok (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 104-8). All members of parliament agreed. On September 5 this debate took place. The minister had the opportunity to explain his actions, and members of parliaments could ask questions and debate the issue. The six-hour debate ended with a vote of no confidence, initiated by Kuzu (DENK). SP, PvdA, GroenLinks, PvdD and DENK voted in favor, all other parties voted against, so the motion was voted down (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 105-7-1). Those voting in favor did so because they still doubted the credibility of the minister. Those voting against believed that Blok had sufficiently regained (or retained) their trust in his role as minister of Foreign Affairs. They also believed it would be best if Blok stayed on and would show, in practice, that his credibility had not been damaged too much. Detailed contributions of the minister and members of parliament to this debate are discussed in paragraph 4.3 and 4.4.

Aftermath

After all the societal upheaval and the parliamentary debate, Blok remained in office as minister of Foreign Affairs and the discussion surrounding his statements fell silent. Members of parliament were most active in this discussion, which is understandable considering parliamentary control over the executive. The fact that none of the coalition parties (CU, D66, CDA and VVD) supported the vote of no confidence is understandable too. The case shows how norms of integrity are often not clear but instead debated upon.

4.3 Defense strategies

This paragraph discusses the defense strategies Blok used when he was accused of the integrity violations mentioned above. Defense strategies are drawn from the following documents: Blok’s first responses to NOS (NOS, 2018) and in a letter to parliament on July 18th _(Blok,

2018), Blok’s second round of response being the answers on August 16th_{to questions from}

Ploumen and Wilders (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921; Tweede Kamer 2017-2018 2018Z14280), and Blok’s contribution to the parliamentary debate on September 5th _(Tweede

(34)

Kamer 2017-2018, 105-6). Appendix C contains the complete categorization of all defense strategies and (parts of) the original Dutch text. Here, I give a synthesis of the analysis in Appendix C.

Good intentions

Blok repeatedly stated that he had good intentions during the meeting on July 10th_{. He wanted}

to stir up an open and honest debate. In order to achieve that goal, he used provocative (Dutch: prikkelend) phrases. He used this defense strategy from the very beginning, in the letter on July 18th _{in which he wrote: “my}

goal was both to stimulate an open exchange, and to listen to participant’s experiences. My contribution to the Q&A session during the meeting was partly aimed at stirring up debate” (Blok, 2018). He repeated this strategy

until the debate on September 5th_{, during which he said: “my goal [during the meeting] was to}

not keep using formal words, but to really get to the core of the issue.” (Tweede Kamer 2017 – 2018, 105 – 6 - 2)

Apology

Blok apologized for the phrasing of his statements and for offending people. He did so in the NOS interview on July 18th_{in which he admitted: “I did not choose my words well, and I regret}

that, and I have offended people with these words, and I regret that too.” (NOS, 2018) In the letter he sent to the Tweede Kamer on July 18th_{, he wrote: “I regret that I have offended people”}

(Blok, 2018). He repeated this apology in the answers to member of parliament Ploumen on August 16th_{: “I should not have done that, especially not in my role as minister of Foreign}

Affairs. I regret that.” (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921). On September 5th, Blok once more apologized: “I regret that.” (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 105-6-1). Blok did not apologize for the content of his statements, although in approximately the middle of the debate on September 5th_{, he explicitly distanced himself not only from}

the phrasing, but also from the content of his statements (Appendix C, paragraph 7.7).

“Should not have said that”

This is not a type of defense strategy mentioned in the typology in chapter 2. I chose to create

“My goal was to stir up debate”

“I regret that I have offended

(35)

regret that) and saying “I should not have said/done that”. Perhaps because with an apology, someone leaves the words for what they are and expresses regret about the reality he/she has created. Saying “I should not have said that” is an attempt to change that reality, to rewind time as it were.

Blok used the phrase “I should not have said that” or “I should not have done that” numerous times. In the interview with NOS he said that he should not have called Suriname a failed state (NOS, 2018). In the answers to member of parliament Ploumen, Blok said “I should not have said that it is probably in our genes that we want to live in a small group and that we are not able to

connect with people we do not know.” (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921). In the parliamentary debate on September 5th_{, Blok admitted that “I should not have done that, not as minister of}

Foreign Affairs” and “there are a few things that I should have done differently.” (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 105-6-1/2)

Peripheral concessions

In his first response after the publishing of video material of the meeting, Blok expressed peripheral concessions. To Zembla he said that “during the confidential meeting I have used illustrations that, in public debate, may come across as unfortunate.” (Zembla, 2018). Blok did not deny that he was the one who used the illustrations, so from that perspective he admitted some involvement. At the same time, he did not confirm real involvement in offending people either. He rather pointed to the fact that some people may have found it offensive, but that that was their own responsibility.

Differentiation

Blok used the strategy of differentiation as well. In his letter to parliament on July 18th_{, Blok}

wrote “when I used the term ‘failed state’, I did not refer to the common international definition of ‘failed state’.” (Blok, 2018). Blok did not deny using the term, but he made it look less offensive by elaborating on what he meant when he said it, basically by adjusting the common definition of the term ‘failed state’. He used this strategy again in his answers to member of parliament Ploumen (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921), writing: “my statements on the multicultural society referred to how, for example, tensions may arise in society when there is a big and/or uncontrolled inflow of irregular migrants, and to the concerns people in that society have about it.” This is a differentiation from what Blok said during the meeting on July 10th,

“I should not have done that,

not as a minister of

Foreign Affairs”

(36)

namely that he does not know any example of a peaceful multi-cultural society (Transcript attached to Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2921). Again, he adjusted the meaning of his statements: by saying that ‘there is no peaceful example’ he did not mean to say that there are no peaceful examples in which peaceful means ‘without war’. He differentiated the common meaning of peaceful from his meaning of peaceful, namely that peaceful means ‘without any tension’. He tried to make his statement come across as less offensive.

Silence

In his letter to the Tweede Kamer on July 18th_{(Blok, 2018), Blok kept silent on his statements}

about xenophobia (“I have a very pragmatic attitude towards xenophobia.”) and genes (“Somewhere deep in our genes is probably programmed that we want a clear, defined group of people to hunt and live with.”). He did not comment in any way upon these statements until he was requested to do so by member of parliament Ploumen (Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 2018Z14280).

Corrective action

Another strategy Blok used to defend himself was to promise that he would correct for the consequences of his behavior. During the

debate on September 5th _{(Tweede Kamer 2017 – 2018, 105 - 6) he said “immediately after the}

publishing of these statements, I have contacted foreign colleagues in countries who could have felt offended. I have offered my excuses where needed and elaborated upon the statements.” Blok thus showed willingness to take responsibility. Later in the debate, Blok said: “if you make a mistake, you admit that. For a minister [a mistake] counts more heavily, but where people work, mistakes are made. If you admit that, and restore it, we can go back to work.” (ibid, p. 10).

Bolstering

Blok used the strategy of bolstering to point at positive actions related to the field of immigration and integration he has performed in his political career so far. In the debate on September 5th_{(Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 105 -6 - 2) he emphasized that “that afternoon [of}

July 10th_{] I gave a speech […] about a topic which is really dear to my heart, namely the fact}

that the Netherlands is extremely dependent on international cooperation.” By saying this, Blok emphasized his commitment to the topic, which most people are likely to approve of. Later in

“I have offered my excuses where

Judging integrity violations and defense strategies: An inquiry into what people’s judgments have to say about integrity