## Notes from 29 April 2025 [[2025-04-28|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-04-30|Next note →]] Reading Ron Sanders’ [latest commentary](https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/04/support-or-sabotage-public-service-and-public-servants-american-democracy/404859/) was both unsettling and invigorating. It clarified a triad often blurred in public debates about civil service: the _what_, the _how_, and the _who_. Governments are elected with agendas (the _what_) — some controversial, others broadly supported — and it is the duty of public servants (the _who_) to implement them through lawful and professional means (the _how_). Sanders makes the case that resisting a legal agenda from within the state is not an act of moral courage but a breach of democratic responsibility. The obligation is to advise honestly, carry out lawful orders faithfully, and, if necessary, step aside. In his view, public administration exists not to contest political decisions but to carry them out with competence and care. This argument resonates with familiar tensions in Brazil, where public discourse frequently affirms the role of the civil service in protecting democratic institutions, especially in times of crisis. Yet little ink is spent examining the flipside: the risk of bureaucratic inertia or quiet sabotage when elected leaders pursue policies that civil servants dislike. While concerns about authoritarian drift are real, it is also true that unelected officials have occasionally acted as if the state were theirs to moderate or restrain. Sanders’ framing invites a harder conversation — one that insists on distinguishing legitimate dissent in politics from obstructive behavior within the bureaucracy. And the Brazilian case brings further complexity: here, the Constitution is not a clear guidepost but a patchwork of lofty, often contradictory aims, which makes the _what_ much blurrier to begin with. One of the most striking parts of Sanders' reflection is his call for "good government" organizations to stop defending the civil service in isolation from the political system it is meant to serve. Preserving a nonpartisan bureaucracy does not mean shielding it from democratic change. It means asking what kind of bureaucracy is needed to carry out the agenda of the day - and making sure it does so within the bounds of the law. Ironically, conservative movements in the US, such as the [Federalist Society](https://fedsoc.org/), have long understood this logic in the judicial field, building pipelines of ideologically aligned jurists. But they have often ignored the administrative state, treating it as a permanent enemy rather than a terrain of institutional design. Sanders reminds us that loyalty to democracy sometimes means implementing policies one personally opposes, as long as they are lawful. The task of scholars and practitioners is not to moralize away this fact, but to make analytical sense of it - and to help societies build bureaucracies that can manage this tension with integrity. PS: It is worth noting that not all conservative currents equate reform with dismantling. There are efforts to build pipelines of ideologically aligned leaders committed to governing rather than undermining institutions. [The American Conservatism and Governing Fellowship](https://manhattan.institute/job/american-conservatism-and-governing-fellowship), promoted by the [[Manhattan Institute]], offers one such example in the United States. [The Conservative AI Policy Fellowship](https://www.thefai.org/fellowships) from the [[Foundation for American Innovation (FAI)]] similarly reflects an intent to shape skills among right-leaning technologists and policy wonks. In Chile, the [Jóvenes al Servicio de Chile](https://www.fjguzman.cl/tag/jovenes-al-servicio-de-chile/) program (by the [[Fundación Jaime Guzmán]]), has consistently prepared new leaders who go on to serve in center-right administrations with a sense of public vocation. These initiatives suggest a conservative approach rooted not in suspicion of the state, but in an ambition to shape it from within. Rather than treating bureaucracy as an enemy to be contained, they recognize it as a strategic frontier.