The Good Chap Theory and the Myth of Benign Power

The "good chap" theory of government — the idea that individuals in public office will naturally behave honourably and uphold standards without formal enforcement — is increasingly seen as flawed, particularly when examining cases like Andrew. Relying purely on personal virtue presumes that all office-holders will act selflessly, responsibly, and ethically, simply because it is expected of them. However, as we have seen, personal character can be compromised, public trust can be betrayed, and there are often few practical mechanisms to hold individuals accountable when they fall short.

Andrew’s conduct, and more crucially the response to allegations made against him, revealed the dangers of such assumptions. It demonstrated that without clear, enforceable standards, those in positions of privilege can avoid proper scrutiny, evade consequences, and damage public confidence in institutions. In essence, the "good chap" model is no safeguard against misconduct — it is merely a hope, and hopes are a poor substitute for structured accountability.

This is why enforcement of the Nolan Principles — the standards of public life based on selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership — is essential. These principles offer a framework that is not reliant on the presumed virtue of individuals. Instead, they set out clear expectations and, crucially, imply that there must be mechanisms to investigate breaches, impose consequences, and restore public trust. Without enforcement, the principles are toothless platitudes rather than real protections for democracy and good governance.

In short: the era of assuming that "gentlemen will behave properly" must give way to a culture of transparent accountability. Britain’s public life deserves nothing less.

The "good chap" theory hinders us from calling out abuses of power because it relies on a dangerous assumption: that those in authority are fundamentally decent and will regulate themselves. When you presume that public figures are honourable by nature, you create a culture of deference rather than scrutiny. Instead of robustly questioning their actions, there’s a tendency to give them the benefit of the doubt — to believe that, as "good chaps," they must have had good reason for whatever they’ve done.

This instinct to trust rather than challenge gives bad actors enormous cover. It blunts our willingness to investigate, criticise, or demand accountability, even when warning signs are flashing. Worse still, it allows the powerful to cloak themselves in the illusion of respectability simply by appearing well-mannered, well-spoken, and outwardly proper. Style is mistaken for substance, and bad behaviour festers behind closed doors.

Ultimately, the good chap model places far too much faith in personal virtue and far too little emphasis on public duty, transparency, and enforceable standards. Without the expectation — and the means — to call out wrongdoing openly and fearlessly, abuses of power not only persist but are quietly legitimised.