A word that commonly appears in commentary on the public service and judiciary is unelected, usually spouted by conservative politicians. As in an "unelected judge" made a decision which a particular politician considered unduly "activist" -- in other words, an outcome the politician in question doesn't like.
I think this is a dastardly trick. Imagine if we had to have a national election every time a senior bureaucrat or a judge had to be recruited. We'd go from having one of the best electoral systems in the world to a fit of ballot fatigue.
The system works mostly because public servants get on with their job, once the politicians -- those in government being treated as the CEO of their portfolio -- make a decision. It's true that a poor decision can have bad consequences for a parliamentarian, but this should not be the sole standard of judgment for all matters touching on the public sphere. Frankly, it's a distortion of the idea of what the public service and the judiciary are in Australia. And it's invariably committed by politicians and journalists who have some sort of an axe to grind.
It is more accurate to say that public servants are appointed, often following a selection process which is considerably more thorough than pre-selection as a party candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment