As a civil servant, how do you deal with policy that you are not behind?

Dilemma

More and more often officials who cannot support their employer's policy are publicly hearing. Whether it is the Hague municipal official who demonstrates with Extinction Rebellion or the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who protest weekly Against the support of the Dutch government to Israel. What do you do as a civil servant if you cannot support your employer's policy?

Try to give you criticism internally

Kutsal Yesilkagit, professor of Public Administration at Leiden University, sees that « always when it becomes exciting » between politics and civil service the same frame comes to the fore. Namely: « Politics makes decisions and officials make. » But that image is incorrect, says Yesilkagit. « Officials do much more than just perform. They prepare laws for the most part, because they have more time and expertise for that than politicians. With that they are actually co -legislator with politics. « 

If an official cannot agree with an assignment, according to Yesilkagit, the first step is to start the conversation internally. « You have to let you know that you do not agree with it. » It is important that substantive objections and not conscientious objections are important, because « as a civil servant you actually have to eliminate your conscience when you advise politics. What you find personally does not count. ” Yesilkagit outlines how it should be: a minister gives an assignment, after which officials work out different scenarios. Politics then makes a choice that officials have to accept in principle.

That process went under the current cabinet more and more sanding for Sabine Kraus, former policy officer at the Ministry of Education Culture and Science. She worked on emancipation policy and recently retired a few months earlier than planned. She wrote on LinkedIn More and more the feeling that with her work she « had to contribute to the Xenophobe political climate. » Internally she had raised things and adjusted where possible, but that turned out to be insufficient for her. She speaks of a « sliding scale » that makes it difficult to « not get used to it. »

Berber van der Woude was also an official who could not support her ministry's policy. She worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for fourteen years, in the last two years at the Dutch representation in the Palestinian territories in Ramallah. There it became clear to her that the two-state solution that the Netherlands says it stands in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could not be reconciled with reality on the spot. Due to Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory, such a solution is de facto impossible. « We are not only ahead of ourselves, but also society, » says Van der Woude. « At first I thought: it is powerlessness, but later I understood that the policy came down to actively undermining international law. »

Van der Woude decided to submit her contract and is now committed as chairman of The Rights Forum for a fair Palestine/Israel policy. It puts her that ex-colleagues stirring, often as emotional officials with conscientious objections. « We are not just about our conscience, but also about matters such as international law and the Constitution, to which all officials commit themselves to an oath. »

Ask yourself where your loyalty is

Van der Woude sees that civil servants often play down their power and criticizes official culture. In many official organizations, according to her, « a kind Befehl ist befehl-Thinking incorporated ”, in which the minister must be kept out of the wind. « While I think: you are in the service of society, not from your political boss. »

Van der Woude and Yesilkagit see that the 'game' is particularly more important than the content at the official top: the position of the Minister or State Secretary prevails above the best solution – something that is often considered more important elsewhere in the official organization. « What is politically feasible is often not optimal in terms of content, » says Yesilkagit. According to him, compromises on that substantive-political spectrum belong to a democracy: « Giving and taking politics is. What is scientifically the best policy often also entails serious social costs and that cannot always count on political support. ”

Lately something has been shifting, notes Yesilkagit, and the official protests are an expression of that. « With the rise of populist parties, compromises are being accepted less and less. » Politics, but also official. « That was the case, for example, with the asylum Nood Act that Minister Faber wanted to push through. »

Yesilkagit is investigating how officials should relate to politics as legal principles are no longer propagated. « If policy is right, you can remain loyal. If you want to tend to the rule of law, you can say something about it. And if one goes beyond its limits, you can take action.  » « A loyal attitude belongs to an official, » Van der Woude acknowledges. « But loyalty also means that if the boss does business that are contrary to higher cases, such as the Constitution or International Law, that you then open your mouth. »

So

If you as a civil servant do not agree with the policy that you have to implement, you can first try to raise things internally. If that does not work satisfactorily, the next step will come out with your dissatisfaction, as civil servants do about Dutch policy towards Israel. If that does not yield anything, you can find your salvation somewhere else.

To share





Mail the editors