Historically, we associate tyranny and by implication abuse of both civil and social liberties with political leaders, and even when governments are held accountable, the political leadership shoulders the responsibility in the eyes of the public. While by governments we conceptually also include the bureaucratic machinery of government, often in practice public servants may get away with culpable liability for their tyrannical actions, as they are, maybe, seen as only messengers.
In that context we often speak of liberty as protection against the tyranny of political leaders not necessarily the administrative machinery of government. At the same time we are also aware that any act of government across all civil and social aspects, is performed by the public servants and as servants they are presumed to be merely carrying out the orders of their political bosses. Should we or should we not hold public servants culpable for any abuses of social and civil liberties in our modern day democracies?
I just wish to throw in my thoughts on this matter without necessarily providing a substantive answer, albeit a mild implication of the important role of public servants in protecting civil and social liberties. At a political level our modern democracies require that limits be set to the powers of political leaders, so as to protect citizens against possible abuse of individual liberties. Let me hasten to add that by civil and social liberties I am including any permutations that these two exist to pattern our economic lives in different ways (economic liberties if u will). Most modern democracies have at least two main ways of guarding against tyrannical leadership. Firstly, constitutional provisions often include a clear and explicit expression of that which constitutes political liberties or rights, which it is regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe. If political leaders at any time infringe upon these, resistance of any form by citizens is considered justified. The resistance by citizens is often a function of civil and social disturbances that directly confront public servants in their daily operations, but the ultimate will always be to deal with the political leadership and punish the leadership for their misacts.
Secondly, modern day constitutions ordinarily ought to provide systematic constitutional checks by which the consent of citizens or their representatives in varied forms is made a necessary condition for certain acts by political leaders. This principle is further embedded in the principle of checks and balances, often a key feature of the dispersion and distribution of power and functional responsibilities between the main organs of government, been the executive, legislature and judiciary. The detail of the operational efficiency of these checks can mostly be measured at the level of public service functional mandates and the inherent requirement for partnerships, coordination and the exercise of power and discretionary authority. In brief the details of possibilities for abuse of power or tyrannical acts actually lie in government policies, programmes and administrative procedures. If we accept that today’s professional bureau or public servants are the basis of government policies, programmes and administrative detail, then we extend the argument to say, to the extent that any of these policies, programmes and administrative procedures could be tyrannical, a large share of the blame should lie with those who provide expert advice and detail to such instruments.
Public servants therefore are at the centre of any efforts to either entrench tyrannical government behaviour that sets to abuse civil and social liberties or they can act to be guardians of citizen liberties in two ways. Firstly, they can ensure that the advisory role they play rises above sectarian interests and puts the citizen liberties up front for protection. This will ensure that the policies, programmes and administrative procedures that guide the diverse service delivery efforts by government are based on recognition of civil and social liberties. Secondly, in the event that their advice is not adhered to and established checks fail to limit political leaders’ tyrannical behaviour, they can act as part of the advocacy for the protection of citizen liberties. The latter of course is a more difficult undertaking, especially where there is a thin line that separates the interests of the political leadership from those of the bureau.
Failure to do any of the above two by public servants for me renders the bureau equally culpable for any tyrannical behaviour by a government. It then becomes necessary that any resistance and challenging of the abuses must have, as a critical part, the otherwise potentially destructive aspect of purging the bureaucracy of those that are considered to have had key responsibilities in perpetrating tyrannical practices on the citizens. I am saying it’s potentially destructive because often innocent individuals can become victims of the purging exercise, it requires more than just the will to purge but integrity, transparency and commitment to ethical and professional conduct by those entrusted with the responsibility to carry it through. I am aware that today’s government operations may provide difficulty in pining our fingers on the old type of tyrannical acts, but my argument would be that, today’s tyrannical acts can be very subtle, cynical, concealed, and generally have a neutral face and therefore often hard to notice by ordinary citizens. In our world of professionalism and expertise in the public service we cannot discount the use of the same expertise and professionalism to entrench cynical tyrannical tendencies.
I have alluded to extension of liberties to include the citizens’ ability to access government services equitably and timely, for their economic survival needs and therefore, any signs of difficulty to access life enhancing opportunities by citizens and the absence of checks to ensure that, become my extension of tyranny in the modern day democracy. The extent to which we can point out to high levels of unemployment, unjustified inequalities of income, wealth and access to key basic needs such as land for various basic uses, we can argue that these are signs of today’s tyrannical acts by governments. Political liberties or rights that do not provide an economic opportunity for citizens to strife to uplift their living standards are only a part of the equation. Public servants remain the key source for completing this equation on protecting citizen liberties.
