How open protest by civil servants can protect the freedom of citizens

Dutch civil servants increasingly appear to be speaking out against the policies of the governments they work for. Political philosopher Yara Al Salman is researching what this kind of public sector activism means for the freedom of citizens.

Over the past two years, we’ve seen multiple examples of civil servants engaging in public protest. Municipal employees in Amsterdam, for instance, demonstrated against the threat of unconstitutional policies following the electoral victory of the PVV party. And at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, staff held sit-ins calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

A threat to citizens’ freedom?

Many scholars and politicians disapprove of such public actions. They argue that civil servants should simply implement the policies of democratically elected governments. If they disagree with a decision, they should raise their concerns internally, allowing elected officials to decide how to respond. If public officials still wish to protest, they must do so privately – as citizens, and not in their professional role.

According to this line of reasoning, civil servants’ activism threatens the freedom of citizens. The protests are seen as undermining the classic ideal of freedom as democratic self-determination, where citizens decide for themselves what kind of policies they want, through elections, for example.

But this view misses the mark. Under certain conditions, open criticism of government policy can be a legitimate part of professional public service. In fact, it can play a key role in upholding freedom, both within the Netherlands and beyond.

“Civil servants’ activism enables citizens to take action to restore their freedoms.”

Illegitimate political orders

Let’s go back to the fundamentals: it is the core task of civil servants to help realise government policy in a liberal democratic state. To this end, they advise, help shape, and implement policy decisions. This core duty also sets a clear boundary to what civil servants may do: they may not carry out orders that undermine the liberal democratic character of the state.

Yet politicians do sometimes issue such illegitimate orders. These orders violate a number of fundamental values, including two conceptions of freedom.

Two conceptions of freedom

These two ideas of freedom are:

• freedom as democratic self-determination, where citizens have control over the state, and
• freedom as individual self-determination, where people have control over their own lives.

The first ideal – freedom as democratic self-rule – was already mentioned earlier. It means that citizens govern themselves as equals: they all have roughly the same influence over political decision-making. Usually, this influence is exercised indirectly, via elected representatives.

This ideal is jeopardised when, for example, civil servants are instructed to provide incorrect information to Parliament. In such cases, citizens and their representatives lack the information they need to make informed decisions, and therefore lose the ability to govern themselves effectively.

When political orders violate fundamental rights or international human rights, they threaten the second ideal: that of individual self-determination. This consists of the equal right of every person to live without fear, shaping their lives according to their own beliefs about what makes life worthwhile.

From internal dissent to public protest

When given illegitimate orders, civil servants can first raise concerns internally. Ideally, this leads to a policy shift. But what if their warnings are simply ignored? This too happens. The memo by civil servant Sandra Palmen, for instance, could have prevented much suffering during the Dutch childcare benefits scandal, but it was brushed aside.

Similarly, civil servants at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said their concerns about the Dutch government support for the Israeli government were disregarded, despite clear constitutional and human rights violations.

“It is likely that civil servants will increasingly be given tasks that undermine citizens’ freedoms.”

In such cases, it is essential that civil servants speak out in a way that is visible to the public. By informing citizens in this way, they enable them to take action to restore their freedoms and the freedoms of non-nationals. Rather than threatening liberty, then, this kind of bureaucratic activism defends it.

It is also important that civil servants do this in their official capacity, and not as citizens. Protesting in a personal capacity is appropriate when objecting to policy on personal grounds. But when faced with illegitimate political orders, civil servants must make it clear that their objection is professional, because, as public officials, they cannot participate in actions that undermine the liberal democratic rule of law.

What should really worry us

In 2025, we are witnessing a global decline in the protection of the rule of law and democratic institutions. It is likely that civil servants will increasingly be given tasks that undermine citizens’ freedoms. Take the United States for example, where we now routinely see reports of government employees enabling arbitrary deportations and detentions.

The real concern is that civil servants comply with such orders without question – not that they take a public stand to protect our freedom.