The civil service is meant to be independent, serving the government of the day as it would a government of any other political persuasion. However, according to Dennis Grube, events since the publication of the 1968 Fulton Committee report (which recommended a more public role for civil servants) show the difficulties in reconciling independence and neutrality with active promotion of often contentious policy decisions

Grube, Dennis

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2015-8-27The requirement for civil servants to “promote” governmentpolicy has inevitably led to the perception of partisanshipdemocraticaudit.com /2015/08/27/the-requirement-for-civil-servants-to-promote-government-policy-has-inevitably-led-to-the-perception-of-partisanship/The civil service is meant to be independent, serving the government of the day as it would a government of anyother political persuasion. However, according to Dennis Grube, events since the publication of the 1968 FultonCommittee report (which recommended a more public role for civil servants) show the difficulties in reconcilingindependence and neutrality with active promotion of often contentious policy decisions. Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood (Credit: UK Civil Service, CC BY NC 2.0)In 1968, the Fulton Committee argued that British civil servants should take on a more public role in explaining thebusiness of government.‘[W]e think that administration suffers from the convention, which is still alive in many fields, that onlythe Minister should explain issues in public and what his department is or is not doing about them…the convention of anonymity should be modified and civil servants, as professional administrators,should be able to go further than now in explaining what their departments are doing…’Fulton has got his wish. As Professor Rod Rhodes noted in his 2011 book Everyday Life in British Government ‘…nowadays, senior civil servants speak in public almost as often as ministers’. But this gradual emergence fromanonymity has come at a cost. It has increasingly placed senior public servants in a range of Westminsterjurisdictions in the position of having to defend themselves against accusations that they are becoming politicalmouthpieces for the government of the day. One Canadian academic, the late Peter Aucoin, argued that it has in factled to a form of ‘promiscuous partisanship’ that ‘substitutes partisan loyalty for impartial loyalty’.So what are civil servants to do? Do they have a responsibility to be pro-actively enthusiastic in advocating forgovernment policy, or is their responsibility to remain impartially aloof and refrain from public comment? One place1/3to search for an answer is the formal rules and guidelines that lay out what civil servants can say and do in public.Formal guidelines matter. To the extent that a public servant can say ‘no’ to a ministerial request that they believe tobe inappropriate, it is the ability to point to official guidelines that gives their case some formal authority. It is mucheasier to say ‘no’ to a minister if you can point to a specific guideline that the proposed instruction is breaching,rather than simply saying it doesn’t sit well with one’s own interpretation of how things should be done.An examination of the rules in different Westminster system countries shows similarities but also key differences inwhat is expected of public servants. In New Zealand, the rules stop short of asking public servants to publiclydemonstrate enthusiasm for government policy in a way that goes beyond the explanation of how policy works. Thiscontrasts with both Australia and Canada where a degree of ‘pro-activity’ is encouraged in the way public servantsengage with the media. Under the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, ‘Institutions must cultivateproactive relations with the media to promote public awareness and understanding of government policies,programs, services and initiatives’. Similarly, the Australian Guidelines on the Involvement of Public Servants inPublic Information and Awareness Initiatives stipulate a duty for public servants to ‘effectively, professionally andpro-actively explain and implement Government policies’. The imperative of proactivity is significant because itsuggests a level of enthusiasm is required in order to actively seek out opportunities to explain policies rather thanwaiting to be asked.The United Kingdom approach seems to go even further. Especially in its language regarding the duties of pressofficers, it entrenches an expectation of full-throated support for the government of the day, regardless of howcontentious a policy might be. The Civil Service Propriety Guidance refers specifically to supporting the ‘ministerialline’.It is the duty of press officers to present the policies of their department to the public through themedia, and to try to ensure that they are understood. The press officer must always reflect theministerial line clearly, even where policies are opposed by opposition parties. As part of theGovernment’s duty to govern, it needs to explain its policies and decisions to the electorate. TheGovernment has the right to expect the department to further its policies and objectives, regardless ofhow politically controversial they might be.The incredibly fine judgement calls that this asks of civil servants are then highlighted by stating that press officers‘have a duty…to remain objective and impartial, especially when dealing with politically controversial issues’. Theinherent tension between following a ‘ministerial line’ and remaining ‘objective and impartial’ is left to civil servants tomanage.This tension reaches a further pitch of difficulty in the list of ‘press office dos and don’ts’ that follows. Press officersare told that they should:Present, describe and justify the thinking behind the policies of the minister.Be ready to promote the policies of the department and the Government as a whole.Make as positive a case as the facts warrant.The inclusion of the word ‘promotion’ rather than the more traditional ‘explanation’ is a significant raising of the bar interms of the level of enthusiastic support being asked of civil service press officers. Even more significant perhaps isthe expectation that civil servants will seek to ‘justify the thinking behind the policies of the minister.’ This goes farbeyond explanation and even promotion because it asks civil servants to defend the thought processes of ministers– an activity that is self-evidently not an impartial one. The third point underlines this requirement by effectivelyinstitutionalising a responsibility to spin by making ‘as positive a case as the facts warrant.’ It’s not just about2/3objectively presenting facts, but doing so in the most ‘positive’ light that the facts will allow. It would be hard to thinkof a clearer definition of spin in modern politics.With civil service leaders increasingly becoming part of the public face of government, the propensity for perceptionsof politicisation to grow becomes almost unavoidable. If public servants are asked to toe the ‘ministerial line’,provide as ‘positive’ a view of things as they can and ‘justify’ the thinking of ministers in the face of criticism, it wouldbe incredible if perceptions of their politicisation did not follow. It places public servants in the invidious position thatthey can be professionally and impartially doing their job and yet become publicly tainted as partisan supporters ofthe government of the day. That is why the wording of codes, values and guidelines remains so important. They canprovide a formal restraint that can slow down any informal push by political leaders for their public service to bemore partisan in their support.—This post represents the views of the author and not those of Democratic Audit. Please read our commentspolicy before posting. It is based on a longer article first published by the author in Governance, and is availablehere.—Dennis Grube is Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow at Institute for the Studyof Social Change, University of Tasmania, Australia. 3/3

The requirement for civil servants to “promote” government policy has inevitably led to the perception of partisanship

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online