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.

A Plutocrat, a Fascist, & a Lout walk into a bar

[The following parable is brought to you by the letters ‘P’ (plutocrat), ‘F’ (fascist), and ‘L’ (lout)]

P: Listen F, I hear you’re going big on your scapegoat-bashing campaign to win the upcoming election. I have plenty of money to help you if you’re willing to help me.

F: What would you like, Mr. P? Let me guess – tax cuts for the likes of you; cutting regulations that get in the way of you doing whatever you want; cutting benefits and public services for the poor so there’s more money to subsidise your companies; and crackdowns on anyone making a nuisance of themselves protesting against your business activities. Is that about right?

P: You’ve got the gist of it. You commit yourself to that, I’ll pay you whatever you need to win power, and stay in power.

F: Don’t worry, Mr. P, your donations will be nothing compared with the extra money that will be coming back in your direction. But excuse me for one second, L, another pint, mate?

L: Thought you’d never ask. And a packet of crisps. Is this going to take much longer? I’ve got a protest to go to, throw a few bricks, that sort of thing. I don’t want to be late.

F: We’re nearly done. Here, have another pint, then you can go join your mates.

L: Cheers! I’ve been looking forward to it all week. We might outnumber the coppers this time. 

P: F, he’s not going to that protest against one of my fossil fuel subsidiaries, is he? I heard that was happening today.

F: No, of course not. He hates any pro-environment initiative, detests ‘Net Zero’ – I told him to, not that [in a whisper] he has a clue what that is. No, he’s going to a protest against there being too many immigrants in our country. 

P: You mean illegal immigrants?

F: No, immigrants, they hate immigrants, full stop. Love blaming them for everything. Thrive on telling them to go home.

P: My father migrated here, and this is his home.

F: Take it easy, Mr. P. My wife’s an immigrant too. L and his mates have a go at the people we encourage them to have a go at. But they know better than to upset anyone I don’t want them to upset.

P: You’re confident of that? L and his kind are not going to get out of hand? I’m not just talking about immigrants. When we get the chance to cut their healthcare, completely ruin public transport, make it even more difficult for them to get a half decent place to live in, and take away what protection is left for workers, they won’t like it. They’re a volatile bunch and could turn on us.

F: You need not worry, Mr. P. They listen to me. The more upset they get, the more we wind them up to hate migrant workers, refugees, benefit claimants, people with disability, feminists, environmentalists, socialists – there are plenty of scapegoats in the sea. But whatever happens, they won’t bother you. I’ll make sure you’re known as one of the good guys – Christian, patriot, entrepreneur. Practically a saint.

P: To be honest, I’m a bit nervous about all this ‘God and Country’ stuff you throw around. I don’t go to church. I can’t stand any talk of Christian compassion for the poor. One of my companies sells arms to countries not exactly friendly to ours. Another one channels profits to offshore accounts with foreign partners. And the way your people rant about banning abortion even in case of rape, that’s just over the top. I wouldn’t put up with it if, heaven forbid, it should happen to my daughter.

F: Relax. What you do or won’t do – that’s your business. No one is going to know about it. Anyone dares report anything untoward about you, we dismiss it as ‘fake news’. Your public image is that of a great supporter of our magnificent cause – Faith, Flag & Family Values. 

L: Right, I’m off. Going to tell those [expletive], [expletive], [expletive], to go [expletive], [expletive]. It’s going to be a [expletives] good day. See you, gents.

P: Wouldn’t want to come across a fellow like him in a dark alley.

F: Come now, Mr. P, we need people like L to build up a movement of hate and anger, to push public support towards politicians like me who will then win the power to get even more money flowing into your coffers. Make your donation to us, and rest assured it’ll be the beginning of a beautiful partnership.

Learning from Mozi: the first communitarian

Confucius’ teachings on loyalty, family, and customs have been regarded by many as instructive for securing strong community life. However, it is the critical appraisal of Confucian ideas by the outstanding thinker, Mozi, that offers us the most important communitarian lessons in social and political action.

Mozi was born soon after Confucius’ death, and became one of the most influential teachers in China during the fifth century BC [Note 1]. Like Confucius, he was greatly concerned with society falling apart through people acting disrespectfully an aggressively against others. For Confucius, the root cause of the problem was that people were not following the customary roles and rites that had been laid down. He famously urged everyone to remember that children should obey their parents, wives should obey their husbands, subordinates should obey their superiors, and subjects should obey their rulers. In return, parents, husbands, those with superior ranks and status, and rulers, should look after those who submit to them. For Mozi, Confucian obedience is all one-way and if one is not well treated in return, one is still expected to submit. This blind trust in the wisdom and kindness of those with customary power is simply not acceptable.

What Mozi calls for instead is 兼愛 – often translated as ‘universal love’ but more aptly rendered as ‘mutual concern’. If we are mindful of the wellbeing of others, but others are not concerned about us, we could be at a disadvantage in life. If nobody cares about anyone else, the ensuing neglect and conflicts would be damaging for everyone. The only sensible approach is to require everyone to commit to being concerned with the wellbeing of everyone else. Obviously this does not mean that one should try to personally look after thousands, or even millions, of other people. What is needed is a combination of behavioural rules to avoid the inflicting of harm, and the setting up and supporting of institutional arrangements so that one will get help if one needs it AND so will others if they need help.

Power is to be accordingly vested in people not on the basis of customs, but on the basis of who can best demonstrate their reliability in setting up and overseeing these rules and institutions. Mozi was the first philosopher, not just in China but across the world, to set out a comprehensive framework for testing the acceptability of any proposal (regarding rules, institutions, policies, etc). This has three elements:

First of all, we have the test of past experience: What do records of previous events or initiatives tell us? Did people find all the old customs and practices as helpful as some traditionalists today are making out? What was the actual impact? What lessons were passed down?

Secondly, there is the test of current testimony: What happens when something is tried out? Do people find it working as well as its proponents have suggested, or have problems been uncovered? How does it compare with other options that are being tested?

Lastly, the test of future discovery: What new evidence may we encounter? Are there unforeseen effects that come to be noticed and reported? Do people beyond the initial few have similar experiences or have they been affected in different ways? Are there further consequences to emerge down the line?

Mozi was once challenged by a princeling who dismissed his views as too idealistic to share with the public. Mozi replied by pointing out that the princeling could (a) advocate the rejection of mutual concern, and become known as someone who cannot be trusted to reciprocate the concern of others; (b) also advocate mutual concern in public but indulge in self-centred practices, and have to spend his life avoid being found out as a detestable hypocrite; or (c) stay quiet, and be known as someone with nothing to say about moral matters. 

Mozi himself dedicated his life to teaching and practising the philosophy of mutual concern, to build communities sustained by solidarity and cooperation. Confucius has reputation on his side. But it is Mozi that we should all be learning from.

--

Note 1: Mozi - 墨子 in Chinese – (also transliterated as ‘Mo Tzu’ or ‘Mo Tze’) was thought to have lived around 470s-390s BC, with most current estimates opting for 470-391 BC, making him an exact contemporary of Socrates (470-391 BC).

Democracy SOS

For democracy to function, it must enable citizens to participate meaningfully in shaping their own governance. But for too long, there has been inadequate support or safeguards to connect the public to the making of public policies. People have been hindered by the lack of reliable information, and marginalised by those with far greater financial resources. The electoral system is too easily subverted by those who make lying and incitement their core strategy.

To save democracy from manipulative authoritarians, urgent action needs to be taken. Experts have put forward a range of proposals on what should be done. These are brought together in Democracy SOS, which is being presented to politicians and democratic advocates in the UK as a comprehensive guide to the key reforms. A summary of the 8-point action plan for government bodies to implement is set out below.

[1] Democracy & Learning 

Ignorance is not bliss. People need to know how democracy is meant to work if democracy is going to work. Better support should be given to: citizenship education in schools; university involvement in raising public understanding of political and public policy issues; adult education in democracy and active citizenship; training for politicians and public officials in democratic engagement; and courses on democratic skills run by voluntary and community groups.

[2] Democracy & Information

Disinformation subverts public understanding. People surrounded by lies and distortions cannot appraise policy options reliably. Effective safeguards should be put in place to: restrain the spread of false and unfounded information via online platforms, print and broadcast media; protect public service broadcasters; secure full transparency for the funding of those issuing research findings; and support independent fact-checking and accreditation of reporters.

[3] Democracy & Voting

Every vote ought to count. But in practice many people are held back from or put off voting by obstacles in the system. Action should be taken to: adopt automatic voter registration; replace first-past-the-post by a form of proportional representational system; remove voter photo ID requirements; address issues with boundary reviews; and strengthen the independence and powers of the Electoral Commission.

[4] Democracy & Deliberative Engagement

Division can only be bridged by dialogue. People identify common interests when they are able to share their ideas and concerns together. Investment should be provided to: expand community development capacity in public service; strengthen local government’s role in bringing communities together; support community organising; and increase the use of deliberative engagement techniques.

[5] Democracy & Subsidiarity

Remote decision-makers alienate communities. People want power to be exercised as close and responsive to them as possible. Commitments should be made to: devolve more real powers to all sub-national levels; raise awareness of what those with devolved powers do; strengthen local and neighbourhood democracy; support the voluntary and community sector’s democratic role; and improve public understanding of transnational governance.

[6] Democracy & Economic Inequalities

Disparity in wealth undercuts civic equality. People’s democratic influence diminishes when faced with the power of rich individuals and corporations. Reforms should be introduced to: curtail money’s impact on political decisions; prioritise the needs of deprived areas; tackle tax evasion and loopholes; require those with the most to pay more for the public good; limit the wealthy buying up media control; and establish a universal basic income.

[7] Democracy & Accountability

Those with authority must be answerable to the public. People cannot have confidence in those holding public office who can seemingly act with impunity. Changes should be brought in to: penalise deceptive communications; widen the application of recall procedures; provide a democratic basis for the second chamber; strengthen the independence and powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office; and enhance the accountability for public procurement.

[8] Democracy & Civil Rights

No one can be allowed to override our basic rights. People should respect majority decisions, but only if no one can be arbitrarily harmed or silenced. Protection should be enhanced by: removing any law that may stop people criticising state policies peacefully; curtailing attempts to incite hate and anger against minorities; securing commitment to the rule of law; guaranteeing basic human rights for all; and funding independent non-profit providers of legal advice.

--

The above extract is taken from Democracy SOS, published by Citizen Network in association with Unlock Democracy and Compass – © Henry Tam 2025.

For the full text, go to Citizen Network: https://citizen-network.org/library/democracy-sos.html (Democracy SOS brings together proposals relating to the political situation in the UK. Its eight core principles, however, can be applied to democratic development in other countries).

Perceived-Identity Prejudice

There are heated debates about whether or not what some people regard as ‘racism’ is really racism. But why don’t we focus more on what we want to prevent.

Whenever people come across someone with a ‘foreign sounding’ name, certain skin-tone, a non-native accent, an attachment to different customs – and they project an identity with negative features onto that person, we have a objectionable case of perceived-identity prejudice.

A difficulty with the term ‘racism’ is that it carries the connotation that it is essentially about a ‘race’-related problem. But there are no distinct races – no genetic factors that can differentiate any of the so-called ‘racial groups’ from others. Differences such as blood types, physical strengths, intelligence levels are found within each ‘group’ but not across them. The prejudicial distrust, dislike, or hatred even, that is at the heart of racism (as commonly understood) is not in fact connected with any biologically meaningful notion of ‘race’, but with perceived identities which may or may not include skin tones or facial structures.

Some individuals think that the prejudice against certain type of people is worse/more contemptible than prejudice against other types of people. For example, some have suggested that because of things such as past segregation in the US and recurring incidents of abusive treatment of Black people in the criminal justice system, prejudice against Black people is the most heinous form of racism. Others have pointed to the Holocaust and maintained that antisemitism is the most evil form of prejudice. The vile experiences endured by countless innocent Muslims following the 9/11 terrorist attack testify to the spread and intensity of Islamophobia. And many contemporary equality campaigners would point out that across Europe today Gypsies and Travellers suffer hateful discrimination to an extent not tolerated in relation to any other group of people. 

But should there even be a hierarchy of perceived identity prejudice (with one ranking as the worst of all time, and some dismissed as ‘not really racism’)? Prejudiced attitudes can manifest themselves in different ways, by different people, at different times. One manifestation at a historical moment may rightly be treated as unforgivably cruel. But that does not mean any other manifestation in connection with any group with a different perceived identity must be less serious. 

If we want to track and counter perceived identity prejudice in whatever form it manifests itself, and calibrate our response appropriately in relation to the actual threat, we need to focus on the likely perpetrators and the harm they are poised to inflict.

References to historical events are important reminders of how prejudices can arise and how destructive they can be. But while single events may be more dramatic to recount, the lessons are more powerfully conveyed when we look at issues over time – the treatment of Gypsies, Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, etc., over centuries. 

We also need a wide perspective so we don’t end up forming prejudiced views of the nature of prejudice. At its roots, perceived-identity prejudice is rarely a black or white issue. For example, there are many inter-tribal prejudices across Africa and Asia that fuelled distrust and conflicts; nasty discrimination can be found against people with perceived identities (associated with languages, religions, customs, but not with any ‘racial’ characteristics) in the East as much as the West; and the prejudice-infused atrocities committed by invading armies (the English against the people of Ireland in the 17^th century; Japanese soldiers against Chinese civilians in the 1930s/40s; Serbian forces against Bosnians in the 1990s; and many others). There isn’t one form of racist prejudice that should get the utmost attention for all time. There are many sources of unjustifiable distrust and hate, and we need to tackle them in whatever form they surface here and now.

National Insurance Plus: a policy for jobs

There are two narratives on jobs doing the rounds. One makes some long-term sense but has little appeal for here and now. The other gives false hope to many and risks damaging consequences down the line. In recent decades, people haunted by job insecurity and pay inadequacy have been increasingly desperate for answers, and many elections have been won by ‘populists’ who promise quick fixes which are mostly counter-productive. But will asking people to wait patiently for grand improvements to come help to win their electoral support?

Let us look at the ‘Invest in the Future’ narrative, which basically runs like this: the economy is changing fast as a result of technological, environmental, and geopolitical factors. Some jobs will disappear. Some will not pay so well anymore. But the government will lead the way in getting investment into high-potential sectors which will offer plenty of quality, sustainable, and well-paid jobs in areas such as renewable energy, computer technology, life sciences, healthcare, financial services, construction, creative industries, and advanced manufacturing (involving robotics). These sectors will grow and flourish, and with them, good jobs will follow. But when will all this happen? Who will be suitable to get these jobs? Could it be that one waits for years only to find that one is not qualified for any of them?

The other narrative brushes all this aside. Its core ‘Blame Scapegoats’ messages are: people will have many job opportunities to explore once the obstacles are removed – and what are these obstacles? Immigrants who should not be here to take your jobs; environmental (‘net zero’) legislation that ends so many jobs; ‘red tape’ and unnecessary standards that hold back job creation; ‘high’ levels of benefits that make it difficult for employers to offer jobs with attractive enough pay. In short, get rid of scapegoats and basic support for people to survive hard times, and the jobs will come (with barely subsistent pay, dreadful working conditions, harmful impact on society, or demanding requirements that employers have so far needed to look abroad to find people to meet).

If people are not to be put off by the ‘Invest in the Future’ narrative, or get taken in by the ‘Blame Scapegoats’ snake-oil pitch, something else is needed. And that could be National Insurance Plus, a scheme to give every worker and anyone who joins a recognised paid training programme a NI+membership that entitles them to a lifetime support in taking up and transitioning between jobs.  

NI+ works as an expanded version of national insurance scheme, with contributions from workers and employers, and support provided in return in the form of advice on job opportunities and skills development, arrangements to take on work of value to the community when there is no commercial job offer available, guidance and training for likely jobs that are suitable, and payment to cover living costs until another job has been secured.

NI+ does not have to wait for years for its impact to be felt. It can be set up straightaway. It does not divide people into those struggling with their jobs and those who get benefits for not working. It is about people insuring themselves against the vicissitudes of working life. Variations on the requirements for carrying out work of community value can be set in relation to how much/little paid work one has previously done. The training can be tailor-made in light of the sectors receiving the investment for future expansion. Above all, NI+ gives everyone a meaningful guarantee that they will, from this moment on, have a dependable working life.