Holding Civil Servants Accountable: Merit, Fealty and the U.S. Civil Service at a Crossroads

In our uniquely American democracy, career public servants at every level of government are hired, retained, paid and promoted based on their merit; that is, their qualifications, experience and expertise, typically described in both general and job-specific terms. That principle may be under fire, and ironically, those in its crosshairs may be its only hope.

Merit has governed the U.S. civil service for almost 150 years. The career civil servants appointed under that principle are accountable first to the rule of law (the laws that authorize, fund and govern their actions) and second—and more immediately—their elected or appointed political superiors. The latter is a function of a hierarchical organizational structure and is by no means unique to public agencies, but it is there that we want to focus this piece because in a democracy, those two things can be (and of late, too often are) in conflict.

Because of this dual accountability, civil servants in a democracy ultimately are held accountable to both the citizens they serve—largely but not exclusively via the laws passed by a duly elected legislature—and the lawful orders given by their hierarchical (typically democratically elected or politically appointed) superiors. To be sure, there is an inherent tension between public administrators and the politicians who oversee their actions, but on balance, that tension is healthy. When it works, it leads to accountability for both career bureaucrats and their democratically elected hierarchy.

When that tension is out of balance—overweighted to one side or the other—bad things can happen. Thus, an overtly politicized bureaucracy may be too responsive to a leader, or an overprotected, insulated bureaucracy may not be responsive enough. And career public servants are squarely in the middle…in the crosshairs!