Civil Servants v Uncivil Sycophants

Heard any politician in office moaning lately about wanting to bring in their own people instead of being held back by these civil servants?

Such politicians invariably forget why it’s so important to have independently selected civil servants. That independence enables officials, chosen on the basis of their objectively assessed skills and experience, to analyse issues impartially and advise on how different approaches may work in solving problems. They can thus offer their political bosses their honest, expert appraisals, and depending on what the politicians decide, carry out their instructions in accordance with their in-depth understanding of how to implement policies.

Many Ministers in the UK, past and present, recognise that it is better to have reliable advice to guide their decisions than to act hastily on soundbites that might get nowhere at best, or badly backfire at worst. They appreciate that they are more likely to secure improvements for the country with the help of those with real capability and dedication to bring forward effective public policies.

But some politicians get frustrated when their careless promises, over ambitious commitments, or simply their pet projects, are reported by officials as unachievable upon close examination. In other cases, initiatives ordered to proceed despite warnings of insufficient budgets or unrealistic timescale end up being disappointment which is all too easily blamed on the officials tasked with delivering them.

From bemoaning civil servants who are too “slow”, too “reactionary”, too “woke’, to do as their political masters want, we could end up with calls for partisan recruitment. Instead of an independent process that selects candidates based on their experience, skills, and relevant achievements, we are told that senior appointments should be made by politicians on the basis of who will support their party political agenda, and irrespective of what relevant qualifications they may have.

But do we really want to move towards the US approach where each administration can sweep aside the key personnel appointed by the previous regime and start afresh. Where the people appointed have got appropriate skills and a track record in public service, the assessment of policy proposals and development of initiatives and programmes may still proceed in a broadly dependable manner, even if vital organisational knowledge is lost. However, it is also possible – as Trump’s second presidential term has shown – that the top jobs will just go to ‘yes’ men and women who will say anything the chief wants them to say, and who have no competence for the public policy role they are meant to lead.

The motivations for going into public service and private practice are very different. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a lot of money. But neither should there be any less respect for those who want to serve the public interest. It cannot bode well when, instead of recruiting people who have committed their career to dealing with public policy challenges, we have people who have only ever cared about their own commercial success parachuted in on a short-term basis to gratify the egoistic demands of the leader.

It should be remembered that corruption and incompetence were rife before the system of an independent civil service was introduced. It took many decades for it to be established. Let it not be dismantled by those who cannot bear to hear honest advice. 

The Tyrant’s Temptation

According to many surveys, an increasing number of people are indicating that they favour political leaders who would act without democratic restraints. Support for right-wing authoritarian parties has been growing across Europe. In the US, despite all the warnings about Trump’s readiness to follow Project 2025’s guide to dismantle all checks and balance, he was elected president again. In the UK, the party leader keenest to copy Trump’s autocratic approach and most vocal in getting rid of existing human rights protection without putting any safeguards in their place, is leading in the opinion polls.

Must we accept that we will all end up like the US and Hungary, and be at the mercy of leaders who will do whatever they want regardless of the consequences for others? History has shown that when enough people tip the balance to allow power to get into the hands of a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Mussolini, a Hitler, the will of one man would override the concerns of any elected senate or assembly, until absolute rule is entrenched [Note 1].

Clearly the moment to prevent tyrants (still donning their masks of ‘men of the people’) from taking the highest public office is when the people are still free to expose their flaws, and take action to block any imposition of dictatorial control. Let us look at five counter-measures that should be activated straightaway.

[1] Start spreading the news

Remind people what their flagship policies such as Brexit have done to ruin the economy, increase the cost of living, and lower employment prospects. Don’t let them shrug off every time one of their candidates or office holders gets found out about their offensive views on minorities, or how in practice they run the public bodies they control. 

[2] We do need more education

It cannot be controversial to ensure that history lessons cover the events that led to authoritarians winning over public support with false promises, and then imposing oppressive controls and policies that ruined their countries. At the same time, youth engagement should be revitalised to enable young people to learn the critical value of democratic cooperation in managing problems.

[3] We all stand together

We must reach out to influential members of all political parties who care about justice and accountability more than partisan advantages, and work together to oppose those seeking to take and abuse power. The growing tendency to attack impartial judges and disparage safeguards to protect innocent people can only be countered if enough politicians firmly push back.

[4] On His Majesty’s Special Service

Let us not leave the discussion about the allegiance of our public servants, especially those in law enforcement and the armed services, until a crisis erupts with an autocrat invoking his electoral mandate. Under the 1688 settlement, power rests ultimately with the people, and no leader can command servants of the Crown to deter, arrest, detain, or deport anyone without due process.

[5] Land of jobs and homes

In parallel with the above actions, responsible politicians should start delivering on job creation and support for transitioning between jobs (see for example: National Insurance+: a policy for jobs); more genuinely affordable homes to rent and buy; and reduced charges on water, energy and other utilities. Offering people what they really need is the best cure for siren politics.

A large number of people are tempted by the myth of a ‘strong’ leader rescuing them from all their troubles. But in truth, no one would have much of a future if tyrants were allowed to take power.

--

Note 1: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon’s nephew), as the elected President of the second French Republic, organised a plebiscite which he won to become Emperor for life. Mussolini did not win any election, but was made Prime Minister of Italy by the king. He went on to obtain the support of the legislature to grant him dictatorial power for one year during which time he removed all democratic restraints on his position as leader.