Ombudsman
An ombudsman is an officer of state appointed to provide an extra check on
the rights of citizens against governmental action. The system, Scandinavian
in origin, is not widely utilized, and in many places where versions have
been introduced, has proved somewhat of a disappointment. In principle it
enables a citizen who feels that they have been the victim ofmaladmin-
istrationto make a complaint to the ombudsman’s office. This office will,
after ensuring the complaint is not malicious or trivial, call for evidence and
files on the matter and investigate the fairness and justice of the adminis-
trative action complained against. Where evidence of maladministration is
found to be convincing, a variety of remedies is provided. Sometimes no
more can be done than the publication of a judgment to the effect of
maladministration, though it is more likely that at least some form of
financial redress will be given. Whether or not disciplinary or even legal
proceedings will be taken against the offending administrator is not usually at
the ombudsman’s discretion.
Compared with some European countries, notably in Scandinavia, the
United Kingdom has only relatively recent experience of such a system, and
the USA none, at least at the federal level. In the UK the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Administration, the equivalent officer, is not entitled to
accept complaints direct from members of the public, but only on referral from
a member of parliament, which represents a severe restriction of powers. More
recently similar offices have been set up for complaints against local govern-
ment administration, and very specific schemes operate inside, for example, the
health service and the banking industry. Some countries have also experi-
mented with ombudsmen for more circumscribed roles, especially to represent
complaints by members of the military, where it is felt that there are serious
inbuilt difficulties about appealing through normal military justice channels.
Versions of these institutional ombudsmen now common in the UK are
relatively more effective than is the national office. Eastern European countries
have found them to be particularly useful during the initial stages ofdemo-
cratic transition.
Though there are clear advantages to the system, there is also a serious query
about why traditional avenues of complaint, either through the courts or
through elected representatives, should not be adequate. If in fact it is possible
for an institutional check to be made on the activities of administrators and
policy-makers, it is unclear why the older methods of so doing should fail. The
biggest weakness of the generalized ombudsman is that of selecting a suitable
incumbent. If an outsider to the institution being checked, they are unlikely to
have adequate knowledge genuinely to assess the merits of a complaint, and if
an insider, they are likely to be over-sympathetic to former colleagues.
Ombudsman