Institutional Sadism: When Power Corrupts Without Cause

Introduction

When I launched www.stateofguernsey.com, I noted on the front page that Guernsey’s small talent pool had led to mechanisms designed to shield public officials from scrutiny and criticism. Over the years since, and many thousands of readers later, I’ve had the misfortune of gaining a deeper understanding—things have not only persisted but worsened. And I am far from alone in recognising this.

Guernsey’s Government officials, civil servants and police are expected to serve the public with integrity, guided by democratic principles and the Nolan Principles of conduct: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. Yet, in Guernsey, and indeed in many (particularly small) jurisdictions, the reality often contradicts these ideals. Public bodies quietly enact policies that erode fundamental freedoms, civil servants treat the taxpayer—their ultimate employer—with contempt, and those who challenge misconduct face punishment. This is not mere bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systemic, self-sustaining abuse of power, appearing often to be driven by traits disturbingly akin to the Dark Triad of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

The Joy of Indifference:

Recent psychological studies provide a stark lens through which to view these behaviours. Lobbestael et al. 2024¹ examined sadistic pleasure, showing that individuals high in psychopathy, particularly in the coldheartedness subcomponent, derive enjoyment from inflicting irreversible harm—even when there is no personal gain. This is strikingly evident in governance where policies, decisions, and attitudes appear not only indifferent to public suffering but engineered to exacerbate it. We punish because we enjoy doing so.

The study, conducted on 120 participants, mostly female, found that 87% willingly administered noise blasts, with 20% (24 participants) reporting enjoyment from doing so. In contrast, 40% chose to grind bugs, but only 11% (13 participants) derived pleasure from it. Given the predominantly female sample, and research indicating higher sadistic tendencies in males, the true prevalence of these behaviors in the general population is likely underestimated. The findings support the idea that “everyday sadism” exists on a spectrum, affecting far more people than just criminal or pathological cases.

Perhaps these findings can go some way to explaining what’s going on in Guernsey?

Key parallels include:

Psychopathy and Coldheartedness
Individuals who are high in psychopathy—especially those scoring highly on coldheartedness—take pleasure in inflicting harm without experiencing empathy or remorse. This aligns with situations in Guernsey, where public officials may act against public interests, implement harmful regulations (eg. Home Affairs), or inflict bureaucratic suffering without showing concern for the community’s well-being. Their actions may stem from indifference to the distress of those they govern, mirroring the coldheartedness identified as central to sadistic behavior.
Machiavellianism and Manipulation: Individuals high in Machiavellianism manipulate situations for their personal benefit, regardless of ethics or the harm caused to others. Similarly, officials in Guernsey are quietly implementing unpopular measures or circumventing democratic oversight (such as through the controversial use of legal instruments rather than proper democratic process) exhibit Machiavellian traits: manipulation, deceit, and a willingness to cause indirect harm to serve their own or institutional interests.
Narcissistic Aspects: Although narcissism correlated less strongly with sadistic pleasure in the study, it still plays a role in situations involving exploitation or harm. Narcissistic officials (eg. Planning, SPS) might disregard public opinion or resist accountability due to inflated self-importance and entitlement, perceiving themselves as inherently justified or superior, hence showing little genuine concern for the public’s welfare or consequences of their actions.
Sadistic Pleasure in Abuse of Power: Sadistic pleasure can manifest subtly in institutional contexts as deriving satisfaction from exercising power in a punitive, overly controlling, or deliberately obstructive manner. Officials or civil servants may enjoy the sense of control or superiority derived from making decisions that negatively impact individuals or groups, particularly if such actions are justified by the officials as necessary, lawful, or procedural—even when evidently harmful or unethical.

Guernsey’s civil service employs 5,937 people², and statistical estimates suggest that everyday sadism and Dark Triad traits are not rare but structurally embedded. Based on the psychological research above, around 1,187 employees (20%) could engage in bureaucratic obstruction and punitive decision-making, not out of necessity, but because they derive satisfaction from it. More disturbingly, over 650 employees (11%) may exhibit severe sadistic tendencies, meaning they actively enjoy harming others through governance, policy enforcement, or institutional resistance. These behaviors are not evenly distributed—they are overrepresented in leadership, where it is generally considered that 3-4% of high-ranking officials likely display psychopathy and 10-15% exhibit Machiavellian or narcissistic traits. Given that the study above had a predominantly female sample, and sadistic behaviors are more common in men, the true prevalence is likely higher in Guernsey’s more balanced workforce. The numbers confirm what many already suspect: bureaucratic sadism is a shocking reality.

Institutional Sadism and punishment:

For example, senior civil servants through their relevant political committees, protected by layers of internal reviews³ and unchecked authority, implement laws contrary to historical rights enshrined in the Magna Carta⁴. They face no real scrutiny because they mark their own homework, ensuring that any challenge is met with bureaucratic dead ends or outright reprisal. Insofar as direct harm caused by poor conduct, the aggrieved taxpayer has no recourse: the system has evolved to be hermetically sealed from accountability. When complaints are made, the behaviour does not improve—it worsens. Those who object are ostracised or punished, a clear demonstration of institutional sadism in action.

Complainants are deliberately worn down or labelled ‘vexatious,’ even when their grievances are valid. A genuine review would mean learning from mistakes, admitting responsibility and liability—something the system actively avoids so as to protect civil service jobs and shield officials from accountability. Worse still, once someone challenges the system, every future interaction with the civil service is doomed. For example, Planning applications will be obstructed (often for generations), processes deliberately slowed, and bureaucratic roadblocks erected to punish them. The complainant will pay the price for daring to question or demand accountability. In that way, we, the public, learn not to speak out.

Island news sources are in effect complicit because they rely on the States’ Comms team for much of their material and don’t want to rock the boat, and are threatened with court if they do.

Self-Perpetuating System:

The Rise of the Worst. In a framework where coldheartedness, manipulation, and arrogance are rewarded rather than punished, individuals exhibiting these traits naturally rise to the top. Those willing to suppress dissent, ignore ethical concerns, and insulate the institution from scrutiny secure their own advancement. Over time, the system becomes self-regulating, as those with integrity either conform, leave, or are driven out, ensuring that the bureaucracy is staffed and led by individuals predisposed to maintaining the status quo at any cost.

We, the public, bear responsibility for this, having turned a blind eye for too long. As a result, we face a systemic problem that impacts everyone, and we need to find representatives (Deputies) who are up to the challenge.

Bystander Apathy:

The Systemic Shield. In Williams’ work on ostracism,⁵ individuals subjected to social exclusion experience psychological pain comparable to physical injury. In governance, this manifests as bureaucratic ghosting—complaints ignored, appeals dismissed, concerns redirected until the aggrieved party gives up or is financially or emotionally drained. The system is indifferent because it has evolved to be indifferent.

Worse still, the bystander effect⁶, well-documented in psychology, ensures that many public officials witnessing wrongdoing do nothing. The individual bureaucrat or sometimes Deputy, comfortable in the safety of group anonymity, rationalises that it is not their duty to intervene. Silence normalises deviance⁷ —a phenomenon coined by Sociologist Diane Vaughan to describe how organisations become accustomed to unethical or unsafe practices until they are viewed as standard procedure. This is how egregious government misconduct becomes routine.

Elimination of Dissent. Groupthink⁸, as defined by Irving Janis, explains why government departments, despite housing supposedly educated and ethical individuals, produce uniformly reckless decisions. The pressure for consensus, combined with an us-versus-them mentality towards the public, ensures that dissenters—whether whistleblowers or vocal taxpayers—are eliminated. They are not merely ignored but actively targeted as troublemakers. A public servant who calls out corruption is exiled. A member of the public who challenges authority is smeared or sanctioned.

Guernsey’s civil service operates in an ideological echo chamber where the default response to external scrutiny is hostility. This cult-like rigidity leads to a paradox: the more unethical the institution becomes, the more aggressively it defends its integrity. Rational debate and reform are impossible when an entire bureaucracy has convinced itself that its actions are unimpeachable.

Contradicting the Nolan Principles:

The Nolan Principles demand accountability⁹, but no meaningful review processes exist for the Civil Service. When civil servants investigate themselves, the outcome is predetermined. Where independent oversight should exist, it is either neutered or co-opted.

Selflessness? Policies increasingly serve those in power, not the public.
Integrity? Civil servants insulate themselves from scrutiny.
Objectivity? Decisions are made to protect the institution, not to deliver justice.
Accountability? Reviews are internal; no genuine consequences exist.
Openness? Transparency is a facade; real information is buried.
Honesty? Half-truths and misleading statements dominate.
Leadership? Abusive power structures perpetuate themselves.

To which we can add:

Freedom of Information? Doesn’t exist¹⁰. In Guernsey there is no Law to force the production of information.
GDPR requests? Ignored wholly or partially or redacted to such an extent as to be worthless.
Reviews? Forget it – all that I have come across are rigged.

In Guernsey’s context, the stated principles in the Code of Conduct and Civil Service Code¹¹ are essentially rhetorical camouflage—a veneer of ethical governance shielding a reality of institutional incompetence which at times descends into sadism.

The Real Motive:

Job Protection and Bureaucratic Survival. The stated justification for much of this conduct is to avoid exposing the taxpayer to compensation claims. Yet, a closer look at government spending reveals that the cost of legal advice—whether from the Law Officers or private firms—often far exceeds the potential compensation payouts. The real motive is clear: protect the jobs, salaries, and pensions of senior civil servants engaged in this misconduct. This is an example of where psychopathy intersects with job protection and sheer incompetence.

In many cases, these harmful decisions originate not from conspiracy but from incompetence—a knee-jerk response to problems created by civil servants themselves. However, as a complaint escalates, and the ‘managing’ of it goes further up the food chain, a conspiratorial mechanism emerges, not out of strategy or intelligence, but as a tribal defence. The system instinctively moves to suppress dissent or genuine grievance, not for the public good, but to maintain bureaucratic survival. The individual actors may lack competence, but collectively, the institution has evolved to know how to protect its own.

Where we are now:

A System Engineered to Harm. What occurs when things go wrong in Guernsey is not always maladministration in the traditional sense. Through lack of effective oversight, it has become something more insidious: a self-replicating bureaucracy that enforces its protection at all costs. Public officials derive not only power but a perverse satisfaction from imposing harm without consequence. The public, conditioned by the bystander effect and normalisation of deviance, resigns itself to its fate.

There is no mechanism of escape, because escape is not permitted. Is this not the hallmark of institutional sadism?

Reform Is Possible:

Guernsey’s governance failures are not inevitable. Reform requires

Independent oversight, external audits
Public impartial complaints tribunals to break bureaucratic self-protection.
Freedom of Information Law must be implemented, and recall mechanisms introduced to hold officials accountable.
Civil service power must be checked with a Public services Ombudsman, performance reviews, term limits, and personal liability for abuse of office.
Those found breaching the rules are to be fired, not given another job elsewhere in the CS, or to resign, only to return as a ‘consultant’.

Voters must prioritise reform-minded candidates in the upcoming elections who demand an overhaul of entrenched power structures. Without systemic change, the cycle will continue.

But first we must acknowledge the gravity of the problem we face.