The Deep State: The Enemy Of Good Government

The phrase “The Deep State” is now well established in our language. However, to different people it means different things.

To some it speaks of a conspiracy where a secret cabal exercises control over society via hidden manipulation. To others, it speaks of networks of unelected government bureaucrats with agendas countervailing the elected government’s own program.

In both cases, the key aspect of the Deep State is its ability to undermine and circumvent the Western concept of representative democracy.

While it may be that foreign governments, corporations, NGOs and other hidden actors are all hard at work undermining Australia, I am not convinced that their malevolent attention is particularly effective, and even less so at the lower levels of government.

Although I do not doubt that secret and not-so-secret cabals exist to both influence public opinion and direct governments, it is the network of unelected government bureaucrats that is my principal concern, as the cause and remedy can be readily identified.

The English TV classic “Yes Minister” made light of the fact that the public servants run the country while allowing the politicians to think that they do. The truth of this is all too well recognised. It is also the case in non-government organisations that individuals in otherwise unimportant positions acting with or without others can wield significant power.

Politicians generally have short tenures; even in the same government, a minister can be expected to move portfolios every few years. On the other hand, public servants often work in the same department for years and expect to remain working in that same department for years after the current government has long gone.

The fact is that position and networks allow individuals to exercise power. For this reason, it is not uncommon to see senior executives make numerous appointments shortly after joining a new company, bringing with them their faithful network!

The operation of the Deep State is possibly best seen at the local government level, where decades of incompetence and mismanagement are not addressed, and councillors elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility fail to make a difference time and time again.

Those employed by councils have a vested interest in protecting their jobs, their positions, their pay rises, and their comfort zones, and will work as a coordinated team to prevent any outsider (elected representative) from upsetting the existing order.

This neutralises the power of the elected representatives and effectively places the levers of power in the hands of the council’s unelected CEO and senior management.

The same process is at work in our State and Federal governments, undermining both the democratic process and people’s faith in government.

To be clear, I am not asserting that pubic servants are bad, that they are deliberately subverting democracy, or that there are too many or too few, or paid to little or too much.

At issue is the fact that public servants are not elected to make laws, but are there solely to maintain the apparatus of government and carry out the directions of the elected representatives; they should not be deciding policy or acting other than as directed by our representatives.

The solution is as simple as it is effective: eliminate incumbency. There is an old joke that nappies and politicians need to be changed frequently and usually for the same reason. I would add that a frequent change in public servants would not only break down the power of incumbency but would also act to introduce effective cross-pollination of people and ideas between the different sectors of the economy.

Naturally, there are some frontline roles where this would not be practical, particularly for those involved in providing specialist frontline services such as police, fire, medical, etc, but most public service roles can and should be subject to a time limit.

To avoid recycling, people should be limited to working no more than a fixed number of years for any level of government, whether continuously or over several periods. This would prevent “musical chairs” as people simply moved from one government role to another to maintain continuity of work in order to defeat any term-time limit.

Change should never be introduced solely for the sake of change, but the manifold benefits that would flow from the introduction of term limits for public servants would undoubtedly improve governance and public administration.

The careers of public servants and private sector employees would undoubtedly be enriched by greater exposure and opportunities.