This House would ban government employees from joining extremist political parties

All liberal democratic states are reliant on employing large numbers of their citizens in order to execute the policies formulated by their legislative and executive branches. Many public sector organisations, such as police forces and the prison services, operate as extensions of the executive, using the executive’s right to deploy power and coercion to enforce the state’s laws. Other public sector organisations fulfil vital social needs, by providing healthcare and education to citizens. A dedicated bureaucratic and technocratic service, usually called a civil service, may be employed to provide independent advice and administrative support to elected leaders.

Although the leaders and senior staff of liberal democracies are elected on a politically partisan basis, as a general principle public sector organisations do not pursue their own political agendas. Public sector organisations exist to carry out the instructions of elected political leaders.

Individuals employed by the various branches of liberal democratic states are allowed to retain their political autonomy and their rights as citizens. Concepts such as rule-of-law ensure that all the occupants of a state, whether part of the government or not, are accorded equal protection under the law. Even so, some limits may be placed on government employee’s freedom to criticise the state. Impartial civil services, such as the Crown’s civil service in the UK, may require their staff to refrain from participating in public and high profile political campaigning. Alternately some executive branches may employ their own, partisan administrative staff.

Individuals employed by liberal states remain free to hold beliefs and expression opinions that dissent from the political ideology of the states’ elected governments. They are also free- thanks to the democratic norm of free speech- to express opinions that dissent from the liberal democratic paradigm.

In 2008 the membership list of the British National Party, an extreme right wing organisation active in UK politics, was leaked onto the internet. The list included the names, addresses and occupations of twelve thousand individuals. UK police forces immediately began to review the list to determine whether any of their officers had joined the party[i]. Despite having campaigned against supranational enforcement of basic human rights, the BNP claimed that its members’ rights to privacy and free speech would be violated if they were removed from their jobs by reason of their political beliefs. A number of active and retired teachers, doctors, council clerks and social workers were also found to be BNP members.

Public debate following the leak quickly became focussed on whether governments have a right to vet the political beliefs and associations of their employees.

Screening of employees political beliefs seems especially pertinent in states where free speech laws allow citizens to freely associate with political groups opposed to the protection of free speech and other core constitutional principles.

Restrictions on the political activities of state employees vary from country to country. Rules restricting state employee’s political activities in the UK are relatively unobtrusive. In 2004 the Association of Chief Police Officers agreed that all UK police forces would dismiss officers revealed to be members of the BNP. The ACPO’s decision explicitly referenced the police services’ obligation, under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, to promote peaceful, equitable and equal relations between different racial groups. In 2009 the established Church of England voted to ban its clergy from joining the BNP.

Regulation of state employee’s political involvement varies throughout the USA. A recent, prominent case concerned a Nebraskan police officer who was discovered to have joined the Knights Party, a racist organisation closely aligned with the white supremacist Klu Klux Klan[ii]. The officer was removed from his position. In 2006 an arbitration court overturned the decision of the officer’s superiors and reinstated him. Following a sequence of appeals the case reached Nebraska’s state supreme court. Commenting on the trooper’s position, constitutional lawyer Derek Shaffer stated that “There is first amendment jurisprudence that entitles public employees to certain rights of speech and association. First [a court will] ask whether the employee’s speech is speech on a matter of public concern… If that [is] the case, then the second step is to balance the employee’s speech interest against the employer’s interest in regulating the workplace.”[iii]

The proposition side definition of an extremist political party is likely to vary from debate to debate, but competent speakers should aim to define heterodox political thought in relation to accepted western liberal democratic norms. Political movements that advocate the abolition of racial equality laws serve as one example of extremism. However, it may also be productive to discuss left and liberal extremists. A student Trotskyist who advocates the creation of a communist state by armed insurrection is also an extremist. Such an individual holds views that are in radical opposition to both liberal norms and to the democratic structures that allow him to express those views.

Extremist political movements may also be identified by their intransigent or inflexible adherence to political controversial ideologies. This definition can be useful when discussing the political counterparts of extreme religious groups or ethnic identity groups.

Certain provinces and states in Canada and Australia protect public employees from being discriminated against on the grounds of their political beliefs. Similar rules apply in New Zealand and in Northern Ireland.