Hacker News Reader

Comment by johannes1234321 | Hacker News Reader

> Who else would have power over "nomination, raises etc" of anyone, if not elected representatives?

In many countries that is done based on laws describing career progression process.

In Germany most administration workers are "career" folks, who study at the university of administration and then have a career paths, where levels at are relatively clearly described. Only heads of different authorities are "political" positions, which are nominated by ministers and can be fired/retired relatively easily but even those in most cases stay across administrations. Only ministers and their direct staff change.

In some ministries there sometimes is the saying "we don't care who is minoster below us" but if a some minister with an agenda is appointed they still can be very effective.

View on HN

Seems like a pretty good system. Or who knows.

But since the law is written by elected representatives, to say that the representatives have no power in this case seems wrong, to me. That's all.

If the voters will vote for the "fire Joe" party 20 years in a row, I guarantee Joe the civil servant will eventually be fired, even in Germany, France, anywhere. Well, maybe not in China, but that's different. Anywhere where votes still matter. Solutions would be found, laws changed, exceptions provided, and so on.

Civil servants are a-political so why would you need to fire them? A civil servant carries out whatever law is enacted by the government. The bureaucracy is a tool and tools don't have a will.

> Civil servants are a-political so why would you need to fire them?

Have you watched the British documentary series "Yes, Minister"?

you mistake lethargy for strategy!

All place every experience in a category. One "man's" lethargy is another's strategy. Look and you see it. We all be it.

Like any other worker, they should be fired when they don't do their job well enough.

Civil servants are people like you and me, and have as strong will as anyone.

This ignores the self-interest of civil servants, which they most definitely have and is the basis for public choice theory.

Building upon economic theory, public choice has a few core tenets. One is that no decision is made by an aggregate whole. Rather, decisions are made by combined individual choices. A second is the use of markets in the political system. A third is the self-interested nature of everyone in a political system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

> The bureaucracy is a tool and tools don't have a will.

As if it's not made of humans. This view is in grave error. Nobody is perfectly rational, nobody is beyond bias or subjectivty, nobody is beyond human emotions.

I don’t think this is strictly true. There are documented cases where, for better or worse, apolitical civil servants undermined politicians. Rory Stewart’s book has some great examples.

One reason is scapegoating. If a politician fucks up they can shift the blame to civil servants. Another reason is conflicts. Politician proposes a law and the head of the affected department says that the law will lead to major loss of tax revenue.

> Civil servants are a-political

For certain classes of politician, this might actually be a problem.

There are two factors: One is that the Constitution disallows laws for a special case. Thus a "fire joe law" may not exist (without Change to constitution)

However: Yes, who you vote for impacts government. If you vote for a party which sets priority in building bike sheds, the authorities will move staff to the required departments, while Joe remains in the department nobody cares about anymore and thus can't meet the promotion goals. (While he will still receive the regular raise for the job level he is in) And if one truly wants to get rid of Joe there certainly is a way to find a reason for demoting him ..

But it's way different from the American system which sweeps thousand of jobs, according to [1] about 4,000 jobs directly, where then many of those bring in their assistant, advisor etc.

[1] https://presidentialtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/...

Yeah, I get it's different. Not saying it's the same. Just don't give me the absolute "civil servants are untouchable by politicians". It would be bad if they really were untouchable.

I never stated that. But there is a notable cultural difference between Europe and US.

This goes also further: Many offices which are elected in the US are appointed in Europe (I'm not aware of a European country where population elects state/district attorneys, sheriffs, judges, school boards, etc)

But now we’re in reducto ad absurdum territory because elected officials can pass laws to force private companies to fire specific employees, too. And before you say “constitution,” that can also be amended.

I have no clue what your point is. Reductio ad absurdum is a useful argument, not a logical fallacy.

> And before you say “constitution,”

I have zero idea why I would say "constitution" or anything really. My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives, and that is by design and a good thing too.

> My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives

That’s just stating the obvious.

> that is by design

No, it’s not. It’s just a fact of life that governments can control every aspect of a person’s life if it chooses. It’s always been this way and always will be.

This is why your statements are absurd.

When people refer to a civil service as being “apolitical” or “not politically appointed,” it’s obvious that they’re not referring to absurd cases like “a government can outlaw them from having a job.”

That’s why I said you’re reducing the argument to absurdity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com