One of the major issues within the practice of public administration and democratic governance debates centres on the patterns and virtues of the traditionally accepted conception of what should be the proper role of the public servant, especially under a party system of government. Central to these debates is the proper political behaviour expected of public servants especially for nations that wholly or partially subscribe to the practice of the doctrine of the neutrality of the public service; a doctrine that espouses the impartiality of the public servant as he/she adapts to serving what may be conflicting philosophies of government as and when different political parties assumes political leadership of a country.
I am aware that as a country we are yet to practical measure the extent of this public service neutrality since we have only ever had one political party in power. We however still need to reflect on the implications of this doctrine, especially on the back drop of recent events that includes among others; the baring of public servants to participate in the Botswana Democratic Party primary elections, the current court case on the matter and other related incidents.
Firstly, let’s explore the basis for this doctrine or as some would put it, the implied propositions emanating from the practice of this notion. A more explicit implication of the doctrine is that the public servant is expected at all times to abstain from active participation in the matters/activities of political parties.
However, in doing so, the public servant still retains his/her right to private discussions on any political matter, as well as, the right to vote as she/he wishes. This is the grey area of whether this voting right applies to both political party primary elections and national elections or the latter alone. Inference would suggests that primary elections have the impact of clearly identifying with a particular political party, whereas voting at national elections may not if the virtues of secret ballot are anything to protect that partisan identity. This proposition accepts and recognizes that while a public servant is and remains a citizen entitled to the rights of all other citizens, he/she may legitimately be deprived of the freedom to actively participate in matters or activities of political parties. This limitation of their rights is simply by virtue of their conditions of service/ employment.
The doctrine also implies that neutral public servants are ethically and morally bound to implement the policy decisions of any party in power with equal determination and levels of efficiency and commitment. At the core of these two implications/propositions, is that once identified, in any manner, to be an active participant of a given party, ruling or in opposition, the neutrality and/or impartiality of the public servant will always be questioned. When such doubt emerges, the legitimacy of the public servant’s decision making will be comprised even if it’s only based on perceptions that may be far from reality. It is on the basis of the above that as a country we have adopted the sanctity of this doctrine of the impartiality of the public servant, although we have also allowed room for partisan political appointments within the public service, but by and large most of our public servants are part of the career service. The central import of this doctrine is that public servants must be guided by their expertise; professionalism and code of conduct which is mainly guided by rationality and objectivity.
At the root of the career service are a number of elements that act to buttress the logic for impartiality, including the requirement that public servants’ entrance to the service must be based wholly upon merit, with no considerations of a political nature. It is also expected that once inside the service provides to the servant permanence of tenure, although new trends have options now. Once within the public service, it becomes the supreme duty of the officials to faithfully and zealously execute the decisions of the political leadership for the duration of their employment period and this is a basic requirement for exhibiting loyalty to the superior power and authority. The assumption here is that public servants as employees of the citizenry have little or no special prerogatives giving them any right or privilege to temper with the decisions of the political leadership. However there is a caveat to the above proposition and often this is a rare occurrence in public services such as ours.
The caveat is that in modern democracies, public servants are equally informed and knowledgeable about the requirements of democratic practices and their role in the policy making process and therefore are aware of their civic duties in appreciating the meaning of democracy, the dignity of citizens and their duty as servants of the public. These matters makes public servants more relevant and attune to the advises they give as well as, whether or not to go along with certain political decisions, especially when those conflict with their professional beliefs and expert advice. It is therefore imperative that whilst abstaining from active party affairs is a necessary condition for this doctrine, it is equally true that expertise and professionalism are themselves rooted within a variety of political principles which may be the guide for decision making. It may not be realistic therefore to expect public servants to be totally unconcerned about the political philosophy that informs their conduct as advisors to the political leadership. This is why it is expected that after giving their expert advice to the political leadership, any deliberate disregard for that advise and reasons for that deviation are not convincing to the public servant, then as a principled servant of the citizenry, the public servant can either resign or ask to be transferred to where they may not be required to executive the very decision they have advised against.
Logic suggests that under the circumstances the servant will not, and should not be expected to, fully execute that policy, except when they choose to remain even after the differences. The onus is on the public servant to search their own conscience and weigh the extent of the variation between their own professional and ethical conduct and the expectation that he/she administer a program that the public servant is convinced that they cannot be in a position to offer full, loyal and utmost commitment to. This is the dilemma of the practice of the doctrine of public service neutrality or impartiality of the servants of the public.
