Ombudsman

The ombudsman was created by the King of Sweden in 1806 in order to control the application of laws by the administration. By the second half of the nineteenth century, it became an institution by which the Swedish Parliament could exert more control over the executive branch of government. It was only during the twentieth century that the ombudsman came to provide citizens with a way of fighting against the arbitrariness of bureaucracy. The Office of Ombudsman spread from Sweden to the other Nordic countries (Finland 1919, Denmark 1955, Norway 1963), and then on to Commonwealth countries in the 1960s and the majority of Western democracies in the 1970s and 1980s. It has taken various names: Defensor del pueblo in Hispanic countries, médiateur in French-speaking countries, and Provedor de Justiça in Portuguese-speaking countries. Its success has been such that many ombudsmen have also been created at regional and local political levels, in numerous administrations or specialized parts of the state, and in parts of the private sector, including banks, telecommunications, transports, insurance companies, energy companies, television stations, and newspapers.

The creation of the ombudsman has been the subject of various interpretations. Some have seen it as a political strategy to democratize the administrative work that is continually spreading and appearing opaque and arbitrary to citizens. Others have analyzed it as a political gadget intended to produce greater legitimacy for institutions in crisis. In the particular case of European institutions, some researchers have interpreted the ombudsman as a way for the weak European Parliament in Strasbourg to control the powerful community administrations in Brussels.

Naturally, ombudsmen vary in their status and in the ethical principles that they seek to apply. Their independence, their competence, and their powers to carry out investigations also vary across countries.

The ombudsman is presented as independent in relation to the political and financial powers and the administrative hierarchy. It is presented as affirming its impartiality and as guaranteeing the confidentiality of any information that is brought to its attention. These ethical principles of independence, impartiality, and confidentiality sustain its legitimacy. In practice, however, these ethical principles can prove less clear-cut than one might like, as, for example, when an ombudsman is appointed by the very administration whose activities it is meant to oversee.

Complaints to the ombudsman are generally submitted directly by the citizens, although in some states, such as France and the United Kingdom, complaints must pass through a member of Parliament. As a general rule, ombudsmen cannot investigate complaints until they have been raised with the public agency concerned, because most agencies have internal procedures for handling complaints. The complaint system is flexible, without formal requirements and free of charge. The field of competence of the ombudsman can be broad and related to conflicts with all administrations or narrower and limited to only some of them.

The ombudsman's means of investigation and action can be ample (capacity to introduce legal claims, to carry out surveys on its own initiative, to sanction) or they can be confined to the request of the citizens and the formulation of recommendations. Thus, for example, the ombudsman can give an opinion in the event of injustice caused by maladministration. This concept is not easy to grasp. It covers the questions of delay, incompetence, giving wrong information, arbitrariness, discrimination, and neglect. These criteria must be related to what would have been fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

...