A new study reveals that civil servants, like citizens, do not uniformly recognize and oppose political attacks on liberal democracy. How they view such attacks and respond depends heavily on their social and political affiliation. Civil servants who recognize politicians’ actions as undermining democratic norms are more likely to withdraw—by resigning or reducing engagement—while others, aligned with the governing politicians, may see no problem, stay, and willingly cooperate. As a result, over time—especially under prolonged political pressure—the civil service may become less politically diverse, not only due to top-down politicization, but through patterns of voluntary exit and disengagement. This increases the incentive of subsequent governments to replace career civil servants with political appointees.
Populist attacks on democracy often involve a corresponding attempt to undermine the meritocracy and influence of the civil service. How do civil servants respond to such dual attacks? The findings of a new study suggest that civil servants’ perceptions and reactions to political attacks on democracy and bureaucracy vary widely depending on their partisan attachment and social circle. Civil servants who, as citizens, support elected politicians are inclined to condone as justifiable their attack on democratic institutions, and the meritocracy and influence of the civil service. Those who, as citizens, oppose the government tend to privately denounce these dual attacks; yet, this rarely leads them to subvert the agendas of elected politicians, since they perceive doing so as both risky and debatable. Rather, they are inclined to leave or reduce their engagement.
The research, titled “Career Civil Servants’ Socially Embedded Responses to Democratic Backsliding,” was co-authored by Dr. Saar Alon-Barkat (University of Haifa), Prof. Sharon Gilad (Hebrew University), Dr. Nir Kosti (LMU Munich), and Dr. Ilana Shpaizman (Bar-Ilan University). While based on a study of Israeli civil servants, the article also draws comparisons to developments in the United States and other democracies experiencing democratic decline.
Israel’s Judicial Overhaul
The study examines how Israeli civil servants responded to the Judicial Overhaul proposal, branded by the government as a “reform”, which the current coalition advanced shortly after its formation in January 2023. The proposal sought to limit judicial oversight over the executive and the legislature, and expand political influence over appointments of career civil servants in legal advice roles. It sparked widespread protests alongside vocal support along party-bloc lines. The researchers found that civil servants differed in their perception and reaction to the Judicial Overhaul depending on whether, as citizens, they identified with either the coalition or the opposition. Government supporters reasoned that the reform would strengthen democracy or suggested that the alleged risks were exaggerated. Those opposing the government recognized the risk the Judicial Overhaul posed to democracy, leading them to consider leaving the public service or to disengage at work. As time passed, this resulted in a large wave of voluntary resignations.
From Loyalty to Withdrawal
The study suggests that rather than acting as a uniform bulwark against the dismantling of democracy, civil servants’ responses are mixed. Some view government-led attempts to curb liberal democracy as a legitimate exercise of elected power. Others fear politicization and a loss of professional autonomy, and being complicit in harming the public’s interest. In Israel, those who opposed the government and recognized the risk posed to democracy reported increased consideration of resignation and voiced concerns over their future ability to serve the public impartially.
Notably, the study found that perceptions of “democratic backsliding” strongly predicted both exit intentions and workplace disengagement, but these perceptions themselves were shaped by partisan identity, religiosity, and personal networks.
“The same policy change can be seen as a reform by some and as a threat by others,” said the researchers. “And that shapes whether civil servants decide to remain in the civil service and stay engaged, or quietly step away, whether by leaving or by keeping a low profile.” These findings challenge the hope by some that career civil servants can buffer the public against populist attacks on democracy.
The Consequences of Civil Servants’ Response
The findings of the study point to a potential shift in the essence of the civil service. When civil servants who support the ruling party are inclined to remain, whereas others tend to either leave or disengage, the civil service becomes less politically diverse. This means fewer people inside the system are able and willing to provide independent advice. It also means that future governments will distrust civil servants and keep replacing career officials with political appointees. As this continues, the civil service loses its competence, professional neutrality, and public trust.
Implications for the US
While based in Israel, the study joins a growing body of research examining how political undermining of democracy is intertwined with weakening the professional civil service and its norms of professionalism and political neutrality. The findings are especially relevant to the US, where the Trump administration engages in an unprecedent attack on the civil service, including the politicization of the Department of Justice and the FBI, massive contract terminations of civil servants on probation, and an ongoing attempt to replace tens of thousands of career civil service positions with political appointments. While some policymakers argue such institutional change is intended to make agencies more accountable to elected leadership, critics, including the researchers, warn of the risks of turning the federal government into an incompetent political machine. The current research adds to this debate, alerting that the politicization of the civil service occurs not only due to politicians’ coercive actions, but also because this coercion results in patterns of selective voluntary exit and disengagement.