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.