In Britain, we have heard little about a major news story in the United States, one that is responsible for a certain degree of political damage for the generally scandal-free Obama administration.
The Internal Revenue Service (the Federal government’s equivalent of our HMRC) has admitted that in 2011-12, it singled out political organisations applying for tax-free status for further investigation if they had the words ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriot’ in the name. There is no question that this was ordered by top politicians in the government, but it is known that senior officials in the IRS were aware of the policy. President Obama has codenamed their actions, emphasising his belief that the IRS must operate with absolute integrity and political neutrality.
I have no doubt that parallels being drawn with Watergate have no basis in the truth. However, I would say that this is significantly more likely to happen in the United States because they lack the politically neutral machinery of government that is so valuable in minimising corruption and biassed decision making. To explain my point, allow me to compare the European and American models. In Europe, we find a small number of ministers commanding a neutral Civil Service, which follows their instructions to the best of its ability. The judiciary, elections administration and secret services operate with little or no political input at all. Officials are generally secure in their jobs, and accept that a change of government may mean a total reversal of policies they were enacting.
By contrast, top officials in the American government are appointed by the elected administration, and so civil servants are dependent on whichever political party is in power. The President appoints judges to the highest of courts, undermining the impartiality of the institution. Most absurdly of all, vote counting is done by representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties, under the command of election boards run by politicians. It is the latter two practices which ensured George W Bush secured the Presidency in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore won the election (A stain on America’s democratic record that will shame the country for ever).
My point is that if you lack political neutrality in government administration, it is inevitable that opposition parties will end up at a disadvantage. That’s why I’m proud of the British Civil Service. It receives a bad press: the public still see Sir Humphrey-style inefficiency, manipulation and overpayment as seen in Yes Minister. That doesn’t represent the modern Civil Service. And remember, our democracy would be a lot poorer without it.
