Democracy can be worse than dictatorship. This is apparent from the political scene in Malaysia today. In a dictatorship, people can legitimately rise up and overthrow a bad government in power because it does not represent them. In Chinese history, even emperors were overthrown when they lost the mandate of heaven to govern because of corruption and abuse of power. Confucianism provided the moral justification for this.

But in a democracy, political theory dictates that a legitimately elected government can only be removed through the electoral process. On the surface, this appears fair. After all, democracy is about people choosing the government they want. Once chosen, only the people, through the electoral process, should have the right to change the government.

This process of choosing and removing a democratic government seems to be fraught with problems. The whole process rests on numerous assumptions. What if the assumptions are not valid? Let’s review some of the key assumptions behind the democratic process.

  • The process assumes the electoral machinery is fair and transparent.
  • The process assumes people have a real choice between alternative forms of government.
  • The process assumes there are checks and balances to contain abuse of power.
  • The process assumes there is no concentration of power in the hands of a few and that power is distributed among various institutions that are independent.
  • The process assumes leaders in institutions are ethical and have the moral courage to speak up and act against abuses of power by the few.
  • The process assumes a free flow of information to people and their right to critique government policies and decisions and manifest their discontent through peaceful channels.
  • Finally, the process assumes the government accepts that its right to govern comes from the people and it exists for the sole purpose of serving the people and making their lives better through prudent and careful management of the resources of the country. Its role is only custodian.

What happens when these assumptions are no longer valid and the government in power violates all or most of them? This is the political dilemma in our country today. Institutions that are supposed to provide checks and balances have broken down. Discussion, critique, and dissent that are so essential to a functional democracy are clamped down. Power is abused with impunity and utter contempt for the people and their intelligence.

The electoral process is abused and the government machinery manipulated to serve the people in power. This is democratic dictatorship.

In a democracy, power for policy and decision-making rests largely with politicians and the public bureaucracy. Politicians come and go and therefore have a propensity to fester their own nests. Civil servants are professionals. They have a duty to check their political masters when they go astray. Their role is a difficult one. They have two masters - politicians and the people. To whom do they owe loyalty?

My view is that, as professionals, their loyalty should be to their profession. It is incumbent on them to advise the politicians on policy and decisions and to say no when needed. There are cases in the past where our senior civil servants had said no to politicians, even to the prime minister.

Culture of professionalism has evaporated

That culture of professionalism and neutrality has slowly evaporated. Now, most government servants have become beholden to their political masters. Politicians have bought their loyalty through generous incentives and benefits. I dare say, only a few remain steadfast to the traditions of the civil service.

The civil servant is ultimately responsible to only one stakeholder - the people. It is the people who pay him through taxes, not the politician. As such, he is primarily accountable to the people. His place in the public bureaucracy puts him in a unique position to know the deeds and misdeeds of politicians.

This places a moral responsibility on him - to protect the interests of the people when these are trampled upon by unscrupulous politicians. It is not enough for him to be competent. He needs to protect the public interest. Otherwise, he will be failing in his duty.

The public bureaucracy can be an important check on the excesses of politicians. Unfortunately, the present scenario in the country shows a situation where the civil service has been co-opted by politicians. Much of the corruption, scandals, and abuse in the country is due to civil servants joining hands with politicians. Cuepacs should fight not only for better wages and benefits but also for greater integrity in the civil service.

There is a handful in government who continue to oppose the misdeeds of politicians. These are the people who leak information to the outside world on what politicians inside the government are doing. They leak formation because they are frustrated at the abuses of politicians. They are called traitors. Others may call them heroes. Society should be grateful to these brave souls.

Legitimate whistleblowing helps to check the unbridled ambitions of politicians for power and wealth.

What’s the message? The message is to remind civil servants of the their duty to the people. At all times, they must protect the public interest and remain professional in their work. They must serve the government in power to the best of their ability. However, there is no responsibility to be loyal to the government of the day. Their loyalty is to their profession and its ethics. They are in a unique position to check the abuses of democratic dictatorship.

Will they rise to the occasion or succumb to the temptations of the politician?