The following essay was originally submitted as an assignment for my university and was graded as a 2:1.
In March 2023, Conservative Party supporters received an email, signed by then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman, accusing civil servants of blocking attempts at stopping small boat crossings as part of a left-wing “activist blob”. Braverman later denied she sent the email after being accused of breaking the Ministerial Code for failing to uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service (Wheeler, 2023). Regardless of whether she is guilty or not, the event evokes an ongoing debate surrounding the Civil Service: should the Civil Service be politicised?
In this essay, I draw upon my undergraduate studies in Policy, Politics and Economics and my personal experience as a student intern with the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) to argue in favour of impartiality. First, I begin by expanding upon the meaning of the term ‘politicisation’ and what it means to politicise the Civil Service. Following this, I explain why an impartial Civil Service benefits British society. Next, I consider the legitimate concerns of those advocating for the Civil Service’s politicisation, proposing special advisors as an avenue for reform. To conclude, I summarise the key arguments made throughout this essay.
What is ‘Politicisation’?
In political science, the term ‘politicisation’ refers to the process of promoting a particular issue from the realm of necessity (non-political) to the realm of contingency and deliberation (political) (Hay, 2007, pp. 78-87). In other words, politicisation is the opening up of issues to political debate, influence or practice, thereby making previously unpolitical issues political. Thus, the more politicised an issue, the more people participate in its debate, and the more its positions are polarised (Zürn, 2019).
When discussing politicisation in liberal democracies, government institutions can be broadly divided into two categories: majoritarian (politicised) and non-majoritarian (impartial) (Majone, 2001; Thatcher & Sweet, 2002). Majoritarian institutions, such as Parliament, are those representing the will of the majority and whose agents are usually publicly elected by popular vote. As such, their agents are subject to short-term political considerations, utilising political rhetoric to maintain their position in government. On the other hand, non-majoritarian institutions, such as the Civil Service, are those exercising specialised public authority and whose agents are neither publicly elected nor directly managed by elected officials. As such, their agents are subject to long-term policy considerations, tending towards moderation and compromise.
When we discuss the politicisation of the Civil Service, we are referring to an increase in Parliament’s control over the Civil Service’s operations and an increase in political activity and bias from civil servants. In a practical sense, this would involve ministers having the power to appoint the civil servants who work under them, inevitably choosing individuals with overt political affiliations to the ruling party. In other words, turning the Civil Service from a non-majoritarian institution based on merit into a majoritarian institution based on patronage. Doing so would lead to the increased politicisation of public policymaking, which up until now has followed a pragmatic, moderate approach informed by professional expertise as opposed to political ideology.
Why Impartiality Serves the British Public
Impartiality is listed as one of the Civil Service’s core values, alongside honesty, integrity and objectivity. According to The Civil Service Code, impartiality is “acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions” (Civil Service, 2010). To maintain impartiality, civil servants are restricted from participating in political activities without the prior consent of their respective departments. Furthermore, certain civil servants, such as senior officials and those on the Civil Service Fast Stream, are barred from participating in national political activities altogether (Civil Service, 2016).
It is evident from official Civil Service guidelines that, at least in theory, civil servants are required to remain politically impartial. Whether this is indeed the case in practice lies beyond the scope of this essay, especially when you consider the myriad of definitions for what counts as ‘politics’ (Hay, 2007, pp. 61-65). Instead, this essay focuses on the rationale behind the Civil Service’s normative emphasis on impartiality rather than its empirical practice of impartiality. That said, having spent a week working with DBT, I can attest it was highly discouraged and frowned upon to have any kind of political discussions in the workplace, more so than anywhere else I have worked. Many of the civil servants I spoke to expressed frustration with having their political expression restricted. Politicising the Civil Service may ease this frustration, but will it be conducive to the betterment of British society?
To understand why the Civil Service emphasises political impartiality, we must familiarise ourselves with the institution’s history. In 1806, the East India Company established the East India College in Haileybury, taking inspiration from imperial China’s examination system to train administrators to serve in India. Over the next few decades, a similar examination system was called for by members of Parliament to replace the old patronage system used to appoint civil servants, culminating in the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service. The report used the East India Company as a model to advocate for a unified and impartial civil service where appointments were based on merit instead of patronage (Northcote & Trevelyan, 1854). These proposed reforms were gradually implemented at varying paces across government departments, laying the foundations of the Civil Service (Coolican, 2018; Heffer, 2013, pp. 469-505). However, it wasn’t until the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that any of these reforms were codified in law.
The Northcote-Trevelyan Report argued appointments should be made through open and competitive examinations rather than patronage to ensure individuals with the necessary skills and qualifications are selected. Today, the Civil Service conducts competitive examinations to ensure only the best candidates are appointed to senior positions through schemes such as the Civil Service Fast Stream. For specialist roles requiring a particular skill or knowledge base, only candidates who can prove they have the necessary experience are allowed to enter the role.
DBT’s International Trade Advisors (ITAs) must have at least five years of commercial experience. As a direct result of employing qualified and competent ITAs, DBT secured 4,935 export wins for UK businesses from March 2022 to March 2023 (Department for Business & Trade, 2023). Thus, the Civil Service’s merit-based appointments benefit the UK economy and, by extension, British society. Had these appointments been made based on patronage, it is unlikely DBT would have had the same success. This is evidenced by the lack of success experienced by countries with more politicised civil services. For example, in March 2023, Nigeria’s goods exports only totalled ₦6,487 billion (£6.4 billion) compared to the UK’s £37.7 billion (HM Revenue & Customs, 2023; National Bureau of Statistics, 2023, p. 28).
The report also highlighted political impartiality as crucial to maintaining a consistent approach to public policy. Under a politicised system, public policy would constantly shift with the changing winds of government. Similarly, political bias would obscure the Civil Service from taking advantage of opportunities that do not fit the ruling party’s agenda. By remaining impartial, the Civil Service maintains an unbiased, long-term approach to policy implementation.
During my placement, DBT was working to support the British Halal industry with an aim to increase Britain’s Halal exports. The global Halal industry is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world, with an annual estimated growth rate of 20%, and is valued at about $560 billion (£444 billion) a year (Azam & Abdullah, 2020). Tapping into this lucrative market only serves to boost the UK economy and benefit British society. Had the Civil Service been politicised and the DBT’s senior leadership been chosen by Parliament, it’s improbable that DBT would have committed its resources to supporting the British Halal industry due to the ruling Conservative Party’s insensitivities towards the Muslim community (Allen, 2021). Had this been the case, it would have been a missed opportunity to boost the UK economy, thereby hindering British society. Luckily, the Civil Service’s pragmatism prevailed over political rhetoric.
Lastly, the report emphasised the need for public confidence in the Civil Service. By remaining politically impartial, civil servants would be perceived as serving the public interest rather than political agendas. This fosters trust in the government and ensures decisions are made with public welfare in mind. This is especially important when working with members of the public who may distrust the politics of Parliament.
At the end of my placement, I was tasked with canvassing the Manchester Halal Expo to identify high-export potential businesses and inform them about DBT’s support services. Many of the businesses I spoke to were suspicious of the government due to the Conservative Party’s reputation for being Islamophobic. However, once I explained that DBT and the wider Civil Service is independent of Parliament and its staff is not appointed by the Conservative Party, they became more open to learning about the support DBT provides. Thus, impartiality helps build the Civil Service’s relationship with British citizens, regardless of their political leanings.
Why Politicisation Won’t Save the Civil Service
There is no doubt the Civil Service has its issues: poor performance management, a preference for the privately educated, and the obstruction of Parliamentary priorities, among others (Foster, 2016; Friedman, 2021; Hymas & Malnick, 2023). However, is politicisation really the answer?
Proponents of politicisation often point towards the deteriorating relationship between civil servants and ministers as evidence impartiality isn’t working. The assumption is that politically aligned civil servants would be more zealous, less risk-averse, and directly accountable to ministers. Yet, this overlooks the merits of impartiality and the downsides of politicisation discussed above. The real reason behind the deteriorating relationship is the inherent difficulty of addressing complex issues. Policy decisions related to Brexit, the aftermath of the Coronavirus, and the cost-of-living crisis are inherently thorny and time-sensitive. While frustration about the pace of policy implementation is understandable, abandoning merit-based appointments in favour of patronage will not magically remove such challenges.
Impulsive calls for politicisation distract from the urgent need for joint reform efforts between Parliament and the Civil Service. Rather than engage in a media battle accusing each other of violating the British constitution, both sides should prioritise sorting out their conflicted accountabilities. Establishing a new statute for the civil service could address the current uncertainties and dysfunctions, serving the interests of both parties while simultaneously allowing them to retain their majoritarian and non-majoritarian institutional structures. In turn, preserving the benefits that come with such an arrangement. One such avenue for this is special advisors: temporary ministerial appointees unbeholden to the Civil Service’s requirement for impartiality. Easing restrictions on the number of special advisors would allow for many of the benefits of politicisation without jeopardising the Civil Service’s impartiality (White, 2023).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate over the politicisation of the Civil Service is a complex and nuanced issue requiring careful consideration of its historical roots, current practices, and potential consequences. While advocates of politicisation argue for a more direct connection between ministers and civil servants, evidence suggests maintaining the Civil Service’s impartiality is essential for the well-being of British society.
The historical foundation of the Civil Service emphasises the importance of merit-based appointments to ensure competence and expertise. Impartiality fosters long-term policy consistency, allowing the Civil Service to seize opportunities overlooked in a politicised environment. Furthermore, impartiality enhances public trust in the Civil Service, which is crucial for a government seeking to serve the diverse interests of its citizens.
While the Civil Service has its issues, the proposed solution of politicisation raises concerns about the potential erosion of merit-based appointments, policy consistency, and public trust. Rather than hastily embracing politicisation, a more thoughtful approach involves joint reform efforts between Parliament and the Civil Service. In this regard, special advisors offer a compromise which preserves the benefits of majoritarian and non-majoritarian institutional structures.
In many ways, the Civil Service represents the UK’s meritocratic aspirations, to which forgoing impartiality would be a disservice. Instead, the imperative lies in fostering collaboration and reform to address the challenges within the Civil Service, maintaining its crucial role as an impartial, competent, and trusted institution serving the best interests of the British public.
References
Allen, C., 2021. Islamophobia in the Conservative party: key points from the inquiry on discrimination, Melbourne: The Conversation.
Azam, S. E. & Abdullah, M. A., 2020. Global Halal Industry: Realities and Opportunities. International Journal of Islamic Business Ethics, 5(1), pp. 47-59.
Civil Service, 2010. The Civil Service Code, London: Civil Service.
Civil Service, 2016. Civil Service Management Code, London: Civil Service.
Coolican, M., 2018. No Tradesmen and No Women: The Origins of the British Civil Service. Hull: Biteback Publishing.
Department for Business & Trade, 2023. Annual Report and Accounts 2022-23, London: Department for Business & Trade.
Foster, M., 2016. Civil service performance management: survey highlights leaders’ frustrations, London: Civil Service World.
Friedman, S., 2021. Navigating the labyrinth: Socio-economic background and career progression within the Civil Service, London: Social Mobility Commission.
Hay, C., 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heffer, S., 2013. High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain, London: Random House.
HM Revenue & Customs, 2023. National Statistics: UK overseas trade in goods statistics March 2023: commentary, London: HM Revenue & Customs.
Hymas, C. & Malnick, E., 2023. Sack top civil servants who obstruct immigration policies, says Liam Fox, London: The Telegraph.
Majone, G., 2001. Nonmajoritarian Institutions and the Limits of Democratic Governance: A Political Transaction-Cost Approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 157(1), pp. 57-78.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2023. Foreign Trade in Goods Statistics (Q1 2023), Abuja: National Bureau of Statistics.
Northcote, S. H. & Trevelyan, C., 1854. Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service, Together with a Letter from the Rev. B. Jowett, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
Thatcher, M. & Sweet, A. S., 2002. Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions. West European Politics, 25(1), pp. 1-22.
Wheeler, B., 2023. Suella Braverman: Civil servants demand apology over small boats email, London: BBC.
White, H., 2023. Civil service politicisation is the wrong answer to the wrong question, London: Institute for Government.
Zürn, M., 2019. Politicization compared: at national, European, and global levels. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(7), pp. 977-995.