Is Canada’s public service shielded from Trump-like change?

Article content

What is a politically loyal public service? Who is a loyal public servant?

If those questions make you feel a little queasy, that’s OK. They should.

As we watch the Trump administration sprint out of the starting blocks with a steroid-juiced speed that would have made Ben Johnson blush, one notable element in the cascade of Executive Orders is a promised large-scale re-engineering of the American civil service.

Much of the press coverage has focused on Trump’s desire to dramatically reduce the size of the civil service. In the memo entitled The Fork in the Road, all civil servants are thanked for their service and offered the option to stay on or send a one-word return email with the subject heading “Resign.” The high-profile Elon Musk is the media spotlight for this project.

Article content

The sleeper, and more salient, portion of the email makes it clear that for those staying in their jobs: “The federal workforce should be comprised of employees who are reliable, loyal, trustworthy … Employees will be subject to enhanced standards of suitability and conduct as we move forward.”

How far away is the Trump administration from implementing an implicit loyalty test for the civil service? Is something like this coming to a capital city near you soon?

Thankfully, north of the 49th, we have an evolved, constitutional, monarchical form of government radically different from our American cousins. In our system, the government and the state occupy fundamentally different structures. Our prime minister is not the head of state. Our public service answers not to the prime minister or cabinet but rather to the Clerk of the Privy Council, who ultimately answers to the Crown. In practice, these lines can be pushed and blurred, but the architecture remains firmly in place.

Why is this of any importance outside the lecture hall? Well, for one thing, it means that loyalty in this country’s public service falls under the non-political authority of the Crown. This gives the public servant a place to hang her loyalty hat. She may support a new government’s policies, or she may hold her nose. But in the course of her job, she is politically neutral. That neutrality and loyalty is mirrored in the independence of the state from governments du jour as they come and inevitably go in our democracy. The political neutrality of the state ensures the liberal democratic credentials of this system of government.

Article content

Not so south of our border. The president is both the head of the executive branch, and the head of state. Yes, the American civil service has historically been expected to be politically neutral below the highest levels where political appointments are made. Also, civil servants take an oath of office to protect the Constitution. Furthermore, there are protections for civil servants from arbitrary dismissals based on party-political interests of the various branches of government.

But for all that, the kinds of deep architectural structures that separate and insulate the bureaucracy do not figure there as they do here. A commitment to defend the U.S. Constitution, where the Constitution includes the power of the executive, leaves open some substantive anti-liberal avenues. Trump tested this at the end of his first term with the introduction of a widening of the category of removable civil servants with his “Schedule F” designation (something president Joe Biden rescinded).

The Fork in the Road memo is intended to revisit that task, with the new Schedule Policy/Career designation having replaced the original Schedule F language. The lightning speed of all of this evidences much careful planning over the past four years from the egghead brigade in behind this populous movement.

Article content

If you want to get deeper into the weeds on the subservience of all organs of government to the leader principle, start with Carl Schmitt, a love interest of both the radical right and portions of the post-liberal left.

It would be ironic, indeed, if evolved constitutional monarchies of the 21st century prove more resistant to the creep of anti-liberal authoritarianism than republics that fought revolutionary wars to overthrow monarchical rule.

To the eternal frustration and fascination of academics, there are no straight lines in history or politics.

Assuming we manage to keep from trading in the maple leaf for a 51st star on a foreign flag, the architecture of our system of government and state may prove more successful in weathering the coming illiberal storm.

The integrity of the public service may prove to be a canary in the coal mine.

Paul Abela is an associate professor in Philosophy at Acadia University.

Article content