Introduction
The hatch act of 1913 was a bill that was marred with many controversies especially from the different political divides in the United States of America. However, the controversial bill was intended to limit civil workers in the executive arm of the American government from actively participating in partisan political activities (Ruccucci, 2006). The bill stated that only the president, the vice president, and some specified government officials could be allowed to take part in political activities. The recommendations in this particular bill spurred a myriad of contentions across the country with some people praising its intentions while others were skeptical. This paper seeks to argue that civil servants in the government should not be allowed to participate in any political activities in the country hence supporting re-hatching.
Discussion
Having political influence in the civil service in my opinion could be detrimental to the safety and integrity of the country. If every government that is in power will have to recruit new employees who support their political agendas, then the oversight of government will be compromised. Bowman and West (2009) gave an example in their article where the executive gave an order in2007 that required all the departmental regulations to be passed through a particular agency for approval. The said agency was politically aligned to the government in power at that time and this created very heated debates about the intention of such a directive. While many excuses can be given for having such a directive, the negative effects of allowing such political infiltration in the civil service can do more harm than good to the country.
Political influence in the civil service can damage the continuity of fair and open scrutiny of government operations. Bowman and West (2009) argue that such political infiltration in the civil service can lead to instances where critical information is withheld from the public domain. Such loss of information or lack of it can be injurious to the public. This can enable the government to do what they want to disregard the rule of law and many political ills can be perpetrated if oversight is not established. Political appointees are simply watchdogs for the government and their main work is to promote and protect their employer’s interests. This does not affect the executive arm of government only but spreads all through to other public offices.
For instance, as Bowman and West (2009) have noted, there are ongoing controversies about the effectiveness of the national electoral body in the United States. The electoral body has been accused of having partisan officials a situation that can lead to compromised electoral results. The reorganization of civil employments in every new government gives leeway for several things to go wrong in the political scene. Change of personnel and patronage creates a situation where loyalty is more valued than expertise. Political appointees are bound by their political alignment to support and protect the interests of their political bosses. If this is allowed, the government will always have its way in everything whether it promotes the interests of the public or not. Having political influence in the electoral body for instance will deny the chance for the American public to choose their leaders openly and democratically.
The involvement of civil servants in the political arena must be regulated and restricted completely to ensure nonpartisan results in politics. As they work for the federal government, the civil servants can easily find a way to compromise and influence the outcomes of an election. The Re-Hatching bill is meant to relax or loosen the laws that were enacted to restrict or limit the involvement of public servants in partisan politics. My objection to this attempt is based on the major impacts of partisan politics in the civil service. Partisan politics can have can cause the electorate to lose their confidence in the government. Supporters of the bill argue that restricting political alienations for public servants is denying them their democratic rights. While democracy is a noble political idea, checks and balances must be put in place to avoid political malpractices.
Public servants have a right to choose and support the political party or their preferred candidate. However, if political infiltration is allowed, several things can go wrong. One of the basic problems that would occur is that many people will lose their jobs for showing public and active support for their rival political opponents (Ruccucci, 2006). Political rivalry showing the in the civil service could damage the credibility of the entire political administration hence creating a weak government. There is also the issue of political rewards where civil servants who show political alienation are appreciated for their loyalty (Ruccucci, 2006). This is definitely at the expense of integrity and qualification hence compromising on the quality of service delivery and professionalism.
Political infiltration creates favoritism, corruption, unfair treatment in the civil service, and some instances, it can also lead to termination of employment (Ruccucci, 2006). When political rivals get to power, they tend to control every department in the government to be in control and influence their agendas. If the city workers are allowed to participate in partisan political activities, then they become victims if their preferred candidate is not the ultimate winner in the elections. They will be the first lot to lose their jobs as the new government takes the reins of power. UN-hatching of civil employees takes us back to the old dark days when the political elite used their influence in the civil service to influence their political presence in the country.
Re-Hatching, as Bowman and West (2009) have stated in their article, seeks the greater good for every citizen. It makes the civil servants take responsibility in meeting and performing their duties to satisfy the public needs. Restricting political influence in the public service also promotes democracy by allowing the public to make their decisions and choose a preferred political leader. Allowing the civil servants to participate in partisan political activities makes the electoral process vulnerable to political influence hence compromising the democratic spirit of the constitution.
Conclusion
This paper has scrutinized and discussed the effects of allowing civil servants to participate in political matters. The paper argues in support of re-hatching public employees to restore sanity in the political scene in the United States. In this essay, the notion that re-hatching denies the employees their rights to democracy has been refuted and nullified. The paper emphasizes that it is in the interest of the public to have a politically free civil service for democracy to prevail. The paper has also given several situations where the government has tried using its influence to cover up some political scores using an agency aligned to it. This shows how political infiltration can be disastrous. The paper has also sought to present the proverbial aftermath of having political influence in the civil service.
References
Bowman, J. S., & West, J.P. (2009). To Re-Hatch Public Employees Or Not? An Ethical Analysis of the Relaxation of Restriction of Political Activities in Civil Service. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 52-61.
Ruccucci, N. (2006). Public personnel management: current concern future challenges. New York, NY: Longhorn.