Seen but not partisan: Changing expectations of public servants in Westminster systems

Political drivers: shifting blame and seeking responsiveness

The context in which public servants conduct their work has changed dramatically in the twenty-first century. The traditional bargain, where public servants provide expert advice and loyally implement the elected government's direction in return for job security and anonymity, has been under strain for decades (Savoie, 2003; Hood and Lodge, 2006; Cooper, 2017). Increasingly, public servants are taking on a public-facing role, frequently appearing at parliamentary committees (Bourgault and Gow, 2022; Grube, 2014), giving public speeches (Grube, 2013), and interacting with citizens and societal groups (Aucoin, 2012). Government ministers are more likely to publicly blame public servants when something goes wrong in their department, violating the principle of ministerial responsibility and public service anonymity (Hood and Lodge, 2006; Savoie, 2003). Indeed, the risk of blame factors into institutional design decisions, as politicians directly control or delegate controversial issues to pre-emptively avoid blame or ensure that they can claim credit (Weaver, 1986; Hood, 2002; Hinterleitner, 2020). To the extent that these institutional blame games prevent policy responses to important societal problems, they can impede democratic accountability and responsiveness (Hinterleitner, 2022).

Public servants face increased pressure to be responsive to the elected government (Aucoin, 2012; Christensen, Klemmensen and Opstrup, 2014; Diamond, 2019). Aucoin argues that this demand for responsiveness and control crosses the line into outright politicization, interfering with public servants’ ability to provide expert policy advice and impartially deliver public services. This new model of public service is commonly known as new political governance and is characterized by constant political campaigning, leaving less room for impartial administration; an elevated role for partisan political staff, who can challenge or even direct public servants; politicized appointments of senior public servants; as well as an expectation of enthusiastic support and active defence of the elected government's agenda (Aucoin, 2012; Bakvis and Jarvis, 2012).

New political governance focuses primarily on senior officials in the permanent executive (Heintzman, 2016; Bourgault and Gow, 2022; Dutil and Migone, 2021). However, concerns about politicization in the public service include government scientists being restricted by the elected government from speaking publicly about their research (Turner, 2013; Amend and Barney, 2016), the use of government communications by ministers for partisan political purposes (Marland, 2016) and the increased role of political staff in advising ministers (Craft, 2016; Craft and Halligan, 2020; Wilson, 2016). It is important to examine all levels of the public bureaucracy to gain an accurate picture of how public servants view their relationship with elected officials.

Public drivers: increasing demands for public engagement and collaborative governance

Characterizations of citizens’ relationship with the public service are complex. There are many studies that suggest that public trust of government has decreased in Western countries (Mettler, 2018, Lerman, 2019, Foster and Frieden, 2017; Roese, 2002). But the public tends to trust front-line public servants more than politicians and senior public service executives (OECD, 2021). Many scholars have suggested that public trust in government is linked to impartiality, which is about fairness and equality in the process of delivering public services (Rothstein, 2011; Suzuki and Demircioglu, 2021). However, changes in society – the rise of post-materialism and individualism in the second half of the twentieth century and the emergence of new public management in the 1990s, which viewed the public as customers of public services rather than citizens – may have fundamentally changed the public's relationship with the public sector (Bouckaert, Van de Walle, Maddens and Kampen, 2002). Some scholars suggest that trust in government is determined by public sector performance, including macro-factors like economic growth and micro-factors like service delivery (Im and Choi, 2016; Fukayama, 2013). Given the potential changes in societal values, it is important to ask, what do citizens expect from public servants?

The public may have changing expectations not just about the services they receive, but also their ability to provide input into government, seeking to more frequently and directly influence decision making (Brock, 2004; Culver and Howe, 2004; Martens, McNutt and Rayner, 2015). Public servants have an important role to play in this as managers of public consultations on policy or receivers of direct feedback from citizens on public services (Warren, 2009; Mayer, Els van Daalen and Bots, 2004). Indeed, the field of participatory governance strives to improve public policies, services, and organizations while, at the same time, enhancing democratic dialogue by directly involving the public (Bussu, Bua, Dean and Smith, 2022).

Governments have devolved decision-making authority and service delivery responsibility to a range of non-state actors including Indigenous Peoples (White, 2020; Hughey, Jacobson and Smith, 2017), private business (Hodge and Greve, 2007; Shaoul, 2011) and non-profit groups (Doberstein, 2016; Levasseur, 2012; 2023). Accompanied by fragmentation within the state, caused by the creation of new agencies and service delivery arrangements (Rhodes, 1994), devolution has led to new collaborative forms of governance that focus on partnerships and co-production, involving networks of actors inside and outside traditional government hierarchies (de Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof, 1995; Bourgone, 2011; Sullivan and Skelcher, 2001). At the same time, new models of the public servant have emerged under the branding of public value management (Moore, 1995; Stoker, 2006; O’Flynn, 2007) and new public governance (Osborne, 2009). Lindquist suggests that collaborative government, public value management and new public governance dovetail in their advocacy for: “more policy and service design based on engagement and delivery with networked collaborations including non-profits, community organizations, and other actors” (2022: 552).

The role of the public servant then involves engaging directly and more frequently with groups and citizens, actively managing networks of actors, contributing to public discourse and mediating disputes. Politics is an essential component these frameworks, rather than something public servants should avoid (O’Flynn, 2007). This model stands in contrast to many traditional values or principles of public administration. If citizens and societal groups provide input and responsibility directly through public servants rather than elected officials, this could strain the principle of ministerial responsibility. In areas where these new societal actors play important roles, public servants may feel direct accountability to them and challenged in their role as anonymous officials. Public servants’ public profile would increase, eroding the principle of anonymity and, if public servants are expected to mediate societal conflicts and debates, remaining non-partisan would become much more difficult.

Public servant drivers: political activity

Public servants have their own expectations of what their role should be and how it compares with the traditional role. Studies suggest that public servants still see many aspects of the traditional role in their work (Bourgault and Gow, 2022; Boyd et al., 2021) and act to preserve it (Grube and Howard, 2016). However, in their personal lives, public servants have greater capacity to be politically active than at any time in the past. For many years, public servants’ ability to engage in political activity, such as running for office or contributing to campaigns, was extremely limited and they were expected to refrain from commenting publicly on government policy (Kernaghan, 1986). Most of these restrictions have been removed, except for running for office. In addition, technological changes mean that government business as well as democratic political discourse are taking place online, which further blurs the division between the public and private spheres (Clarke and Piper, 2018; Grube, 2017; Cooper, 2020; 2022).

Expectations of the study

The above discussion about how public servants, politicians and the public view the role of the public servant leads to several expectations. Given that politician point blame at public servants more frequently and the public demand direct access to government, the expectation is that (E1) politicians and the public will be less supportive than public servants of the principle of ministerial responsibility and (E2) the tradition of public service anonymity. Given politicians’ and citizen's desire for increased responsiveness and citizens’ focus on effectiveness, efficiency and performance rather than fairness and equal treatment, the expectation is that (E3) both of these groups will be less supportive than public servants of the principle of impartiality and non-partisanship. The final expectation is that (E4) this will extend to public servants’ capacity to be politically active outside of their job.

E1: support for ministerial responsibility

The first expectation (E1) is that politicians and the public will be less supportive than public servants of the principle of ministerial responsibility. We asked each group: who is most responsible when a government fails to operate as it should (Figure 1). This question does not refer to ministerial responsibility explicitly and could be interpreted as asking who is most likely to make a mistake rather than who should be held responsible. The question was designed to be accessible to all three groups, as the public may not be familiar with the concept of ministerial responsibility. The question gauges where respondents look for accountability, which can be used as a proxy to compare their attitudes towards ministerial responsibility.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

When government fails to operate as it should, who is responsible?

Politicians and public servants were most likely to say that politicians were responsible (61 and 60%, respectively) while only 48% of the public said politicians were most responsible. No politicians said that public servants were responsible (0%), while 12% of public servants and 6% of the public held public servants responsible. The public and politicians were more likely to state that all parties were equally responsible (37% and 34%, respectively) while only 17% of public servants said that all parties were equally responsible. E1 is rejected as politicians were much more likely to hold themselves responsible than any other actor and did so at about the same rate as the public servants surveyed. The public was most likely to hold politicians responsible and held public servants responsible at a lower rate than the public servants surveyed.

E2: support for anonymity

The second expectation is that politicians and the public will be less supportive of public service anonymity than public servants. Politicians (32%) and the public (38%) were less likely to agree that public servants should be anonymous than public servants (43%) (Figure 2). Despite these differences, a majority of each group disagreed with the notion that public servants should be anonymous. In addition, to identify the types of behaviours that would suggest less anonymity, we asked whether it was part of a public servant's job to talk to the media and stakeholders. Politicians (56%) and the public (61%) were more likely to agree that public servants were required to talk to media and stakeholders than public servants (52%). Again, a majority of each group believed that it was part of public servants’ job to talk to media and stakeholders.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Public accessibility of public servants.

E2 is partially confirmed as politicians and the public were less supportive of public service anonymity than public servants. However, a majority of all three groups were against complete anonymity, highlighting significant agreement among them.

E3 and E4: support for non-partisanship during and outside work

The third expectation is that politicians and the public will be less supportive than public servants of the principle of impartiality and non-partisanship. All politicians and an overwhelming majority of public servants (97%) said that public servants must remain non-partisan at work while the public (87%) was less likely to agree (Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Non-partisanship of public servants during work hours and outside work.

E3 is rejected as public servants were not more supportive of non-partisanship at work than politicians and only slightly more than the public. However, there was less agreement among the groups on public servants being non-partisan outside of their work. E4 suggested that public servants will be more supportive of their capacity to be politically active outside of their job, compared to politicians and the public. Politicians (50%) and the public (48%) were split on whether public servants should be non-partisan outside of their work (Figure 3). E4 is confirmed as only 24% of public servants agreed that they should remain non-partisan in their private lives. Thus, there appears to be significant differences in the expectations that politicians and the public have compared with what public servants expect from themselves in relation to their personal political activities.

Widely supported values: ministerial responsibility and non-partisanship

The concept of ministerial responsibility enjoys support from all three groups. Indeed, public servants, rather than politicians or the public, were the most likely to point the finger at themselves when something went in government, and all groups primarily placed blame at the feet of politicians. This finding suggests that public servants might be holding themselves to a higher standard internally than is expected through external accountability mechanisms. However, more research is required to further test this finding and explore possible explanations. Given that there are many instances where elected officials have attempted to shift blame to public servants or others, politicians may be more likely to hold themselves responsible in theory than in practice. However, all three respondent groups believed, at least in theory, that the connection between citizens and their elected representatives is the primary means of achieving democratic accountability. This suggests that attempts by government ministers to pass blame to their officials when something goes wrong in their department will encounter push-back from their colleagues or citizens.

There is a strong desire among public servants, politicians and the public for public servants to remain non-partisan. Despite arguments about the breaking of the bargain, public service politicization and the increased role of political staff, all three groups strongly supported the requirement for public servants to be non-partisan in their work. There is no desire for the top ranks of the civil service to be replaced or subordinated to political staff or become more partisan themselves and change with the political administration, like in the US system. Indeed, all politicians surveyed supported public service non-partisanship, even though elected officials in government are frequently identified as the main actors responsible for compromising this principle. Thus, it is important to understand how and why politicians’ behaviours differ from their beliefs regarding the non-partisanship of public servants.

Reducing anonymity and politicization: lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic

Support for ministerial responsibility and non-partisanship among public servants is not accompanied by support for public service anonymity. Although there was more support from public servants for anonymity, a majority of all groups believed that public servants should not be free from public scrutiny and it was part of their job to engage with external groups. It has always been part of public service jobs to interact with the public in various capacities. However, the traditional model of the public servant did not prioritize public engagement as a foundational principle (Lindquist, 2002). The strong consensus among all three groups that were surveyed suggests an expectation that public servants become outward looking managers that deal more frequently and directly with citizens, stakeholders and the media. With heightened demands for transparency in government and a more direct role for citizens, public servants’ direct involvement in political and democratic processes appears to be appealing to the public, politicians and public servants.

The expectations of the three survey groups align with the public value management and new public governance models, which suggest that the public servant's role should be to engage directly with the public and societal groups by brokering interests and leading public discourse (O’Flynn, 2007). The primary challenge of moving to this model is determining whether it will contradict the principles on which there is still strong support among the public, politicians and public servants. As public servants become more visible and increasingly work with societal groups and citizens, it stands to reason these actors will hold them responsible when something goes wrong. This would contradict the principle of ministerial responsibility. Less anonymity will also increase the chances that public servants will be drawn into politicized debates.

For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic top public health officials in government became household names by providing daily updates on case counts and hospitalizations. As a result, they faced public criticism and political attacks when announcing public health measures and restrictions (Horton, 2020; MacAulay et al., 2022). The increased blurring of accountability can undermine ministerial responsibility as elected officials attempt to avoid blame for their decisions. It also undermines trust in public servants and diminishes their capacity to provide effective analysis and advice as they are drawn into the realm of partisan politics.

It could be argued that high level public health officials already have a more public and complex role compared with the average public servant. Indeed, even before the pandemic, scholars noted the contested role of chief medical officials of health as advisors to elected governments and independent professionals who communicate and advocate for public health (Fafard, McNena, Suszek and Hoffman, 2018; MacAulay, Macintyre, Yashadhana, Cassola, Harris, Woodward, Smith, de Leeuw, Palkovits, Hoffman, Fafard, 2022). However, front-line public servants working in health care were publicly identified and exposed to harassment and attacks when providing public health services and education (Kuhlmann, Brinzac, Czabanowska, Falkenbach, Ungureanu, Valiotis, Zapata, Martin Morena, 2023; McKay, Heisler, Mishori, Catton and Kloiber, 2020; Cukier and Vogel, 2021).

It could also be argued that the pandemic was a unique crisis leading to heightened political and public scrutiny over policy decisions. However, at the very least, a more public-facing role for public servants means that remaining non-partisan will become a more challenging and nuanced proposition compared with adhering to absolute principles like never commenting on government policy.

Contending expectations of public servants: political activity outside of work

Complicating the dilemma described above is the reality that politicians and the public are split on whether public servants should be non-partisan outside of work, while three-quarters of public servants believe that they can be politically active in their private lives. If public servants are expected to become more public facing in their work, the line between the official duties of their job and their personal political activities could become blurred. This grey area has the potential to undermine the non-partisan public servants if it is unclear whether they are speaking or acting in their capacity as government employees or private citizens. Before substantial work on redefining the role of the public servant is undertaken, the findings of this study suggest that more work needs to be done to develop a shared understanding among the public, politicians and public servants about how public servants should behave outside of their work.