There is a perennial debate in all democracies about how responsive the civil service should be to the elected government and about the degree of independence implied by merit-based employment, professional competence, non-partisanship and impartiality.

That debate has dominated discussion of public sector reform in Australia over the last decade, particularly after Robodebt and other recent failures of public administration. With the impending election, senior public servants will be reflecting on how to gain the trust of a possible new government or just a new minister, while upholding those critical values that require independence.

I have just returned from the annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration in Washington. The challenge there is at a very different level. The Trump administration perceives the civil service as “the deep state”, a force with its own agenda inimical to that of the elected government. Elon Musk’s DOGE openly refers to civil servants as its “adversary” that must be overcome. The new director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, one of the main authors of Project 2025, said last October:

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.”

The Office of Personnel Management has become the instrument for DOGE’s attacks on the civil service rather than the protector of its role, values and capability. How do you defend the role of the civil service as an institution while upholding the value of non-partisanship in these extreme circumstances?

Institutional differences

The US presidential system is, of course, very different to our Westminster-style parliamentary system. The relationship between politics and administration is murkier.

The formal separation of the executive from the legislature requires the appointment of unelected political leaders by the president. There are about 4000 of these, just over 1000 being subject to Congressional endorsement. So, unlike our arrangements, political leaders in the executive arm are expected to have competence in their agencies’ areas or responsibility (at least in theory), as well as political abilities and allegiances.

The US also has a long and continuing history of allowing politics to enter into administration and even the judiciary. Many judges are elected, as shown last week in Wisconsin, and in many states even electoral commissioners are themselves elected.

For the most part, however, as here, the vast majority of those administering programs are civil servants. In the case of the federal government, they are appointed under the provisions of the Pendleton Act originally passed by Congress in 1882. Drawing on UK reforms following the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan Report, the Pendleton Act requires appointment and promotion based on merit, and provides protection in the form of tenure. Our arrangements can also be traced back to Northcote Trevelyan.

Inspired by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, however, the Trump administration is essentially challenging the constitutionality of the Pendleton Act, questioning the capacity of the legislature to constrain the powers of the president under Article 2. Even if that claim (supported by Vought) proves invalid in the courts, the Republican majority in Congress seems unlikely to question Trump’s use of Executive Orders, including those removing tenure from large numbers of civil servants working as policy advisors. This is consistent with Congress’ reluctance to question Trump’s appointments that require its endorsement.

The result right now is a very muddy relationship between politics and administration.

Initial reactions

The initial reactions within the public administration community, both academics and practitioners as revealed at the ASPA Conference, range from anger to despair, with some also revealing fear. Harry Dunn, the Capitol policeman who testified about the 6 January insurrection, spoke about the strange provisional pardon he and some others received from former president Joe Biden, noting that threats to them and others without such pardons are real.

The dismissal of thousands of civil servants and the arbitrary abolition of programs and removal of funding despite Congressional allocations were uppermost in mind amongst conference attendees.

But at a public administration conference, discussion quickly shifted to reminders of the principles behind the civil service as an institution.

First, concern not to return to the “spoils system” that president Andrew Jackson employed before the Civil War and which contributed to the assassination of president James Garfield after the Civil War and inspired the Pendleton Act.

Second, the importance of competent administration, drawing on the merit principle and ensuring the capability required to deliver the services the public needs. At some point, surely soon, the Trump administration has to move to “Day Two”, to move beyond attacking the old to implementing the government’s own policies and programs.

Third, the interest of the American public in impartial administration, serving everyone and not reflecting a “tyranny of the majority”.

Some deeper thinking

Along with the anger and despair, I was impressed by the determination to find a way to rebuild public confidence in the civil service and other democratic institutions. And to do so without compromising the fundamental value of non-partisanship.

Most accepted that this was a long-term agenda – at least two years and probably longer. In the meantime, state and local governments may be positioned to help fill the gap in federal programs, and to employ some displaced workers.

The role of the academic community was emphasised, encouraging the next generation of civil service leaders and conducting research that will inform the debates about good public administration, monitoring the effect of some of the Trump administration decisions and drawing on international experience.

Collaboration and networking were also emphasised.

There was a particularly thoughtful discussion at a meeting during the conference of fellows of the National Academy of Public Administration (I am an elected fellow). Despite threats to the Academy’s funding (it has a Congressional charter to conduct reviews of government programs and practices commissioned by agencies), the leadership advocated patience and a willingness to change its language, but not its principles. It would avoid the compromises some other organisations had felt compelled to make (such as the much larger and more budget-dependent Academy of Science), but it would also avoid directly antagonising the Trump administration or the Republican Party. Among the strategies discussed were research activities and the promotion of civic education and duty, including among young Americans. It would also look to broaden its audience beyond the government and Congress to the American public.

Some of this more careful approach is already evident in blogs and podcasts and op-eds from prominent public administration scholars such as Francis Fukuyama, Don Kettl and Donald Moynihan. These will not avoid the ire of MAGA supporters, but they are trying to temper their language and to focus on history and explaining public administration principles.

There was also a strong message of carrying on as far as possible. Former astronaut and medical practitioner, Mae Jamison, spoke passionately about accepting responsibility and doing your job. Another speaker quoted Mother Teresa:

“The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow; Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough; Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.”

That said, it must be remembered that Trump was elected with majority support knowing his attitude towards the civil service and government programs. It should not be assumed that the American people will turn against him and his approach to government anytime soon.

Possible lessons for Australia

The situation in Trump’s America is extreme, and it would be easy to dismiss its relevance to Australia. But there is a common concern: about how easy it is to undervalue our democratic institutions.

Trump’s attack on the civil service is not from true conservatives, but from a radical authoritarian who does not accept checks and balances, the apolitical civil service being a vitally important component of this. A genuine conservative view would support a lean and efficient civil service, but would also value its institutional role including its strict neutrality and application of merit. A clear statement from the Australian Opposition to this effect would be welcome.

The Albanese Government has also been disappointing, particularly in not addressing the issues around secretaries’ appointments and tenure, and merit-based appointments to boards and statutory positions. These are essential to getting the balance right between an APS that must serve the government and one with the degree of independence required to appropriately serve the Parliament and the Australian public as well.

Republished from The Mandarin, 10 April