« | Home | »

The Unelected

Tags: |

Steve Hilton’s denunciation of the Civil Service earlier this month should be taken lightly. David Cameron’s former adviser, who in the early days of opposition leadership set his employer on a democratic bike while his shoes travelled behind by Lexus, has made a habit of attacking public servants for standing in the way of government ministers pleasing sectional profit. It is, the argument goes, undemocratic: power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats – the habitual drone of interested parties. This is the language used of the BBC by politicians compliant to the point of servitude with Rupert Murdoch.

Nobody elected Murdoch or his editors. Nobody elected Hilton. Nobody elected Michael Ashcroft or the staffers he has effectively paid for. The paid-for-from-general-revenue senior civil servant, discouraging this or that idea attractive to the government’s commercial friends, is not elected either. But nor is he owned, salaried or on-call to corporate interests. He might become so, but should he serve a second master, he enters dangerous ground and risks consequences, not perhaps enough, but such as to encourage prudential, even honest conduct. The civil servant standing in the way of schemes narrowly attractive to those investing in them is indeed unelected, but also disinterested, also a public servant. Whom does Hilton serve? Whom does he want Cameron to serve?  

Comments on “The Unelected”

  1. keith smith says:

    Ministers often come into office with agendas that were never put before an electorate, even in terms of broad political philosophy, let alone in terms of actual content. These agendas, and the ideas and proposals springing out of them, may be reasonable but more often they are wasteful, unconstitutional, illegal, authoritarian or stark staring mad. On top of this, the everyday business of government involves constant proposals for action, emanating from thinktanks and advocacy groups of all kinds, usually costly and usually benefiting some special interest. Pearce is right to say that a task of any governmental bureaucracy anywhere is to put the case for saying no. Its a thankless task but someone’s got to do it. Hilton’s complaint is based on the same illusion that David Blunkett suffered from, when he complained about the unelected judges who found some of his actions illegal: the idea that being elected means you can do just anything. Of course politicians are constantly struggling against the constraint of having to be reasonable or even lawful, and this is a central motive for civil service cuts or ‘reforms’ (such as the Australian innovation of putting senior civil servants on short-term contracts).

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement