Take hiring and promotion of public employees out of politicians' hands and let an independent commission decide by exams and results
In short
- Mayors, governors, and ministers can choose only a small number of political aides themselves.
- All other public employees are hired and promoted through open exams and reviews of how well they work.
- An independent personnel commission, separate from politics, makes these decisions.
- Public employees can no longer be fired or sent far away without a good reason.
If this comes true
In a clinic in a mountain village, the new director is a woman who started as a nurse, chosen by exams and results instead of being the mayor's relative, and the shelves in the waiting room no longer run out of medicine.
Perhaps
A mayor who won office by promising reform might be blocked by senior officials who have sat in the same seats for years, and might finish the term without achieving anything.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This covers every employee who works in national and local government administration, including police, tax offices, welfare counters, school office staff, and public hospital workers. Elected mayors, governors, and ministers may appoint on their own judgment only a small number of aides who help shape policy. The maximum number is set by law, their names and roles are made public, and they leave their posts when the person who appointed them leaves office. All other employees are hired through open exams and interviews that anyone can take, and promotions are decided on the basis of work results by a review body that includes outside members, not only the employee's direct supervisors. All of this is run by a personnel commission that is independent of the government. Its members are chosen by a large majority of the legislature, their terms are staggered so they are not all replaced at once, and party officials and large donors cannot serve. Firing, demoting, or transferring an employee far away requires a justified reason approved by the commission, and employees can file complaints. Mayors, governors, and ministers can set the direction of policy and give instructions to employees, but important instructions must be put in writing. Treating an employee unfairly for refusing an instruction that breaks the law is forbidden. Small local governments may set up a commission jointly with nearby ones.
BenefitsGovernment runs on ability to do the work, not on connections
When the power to appoint leaves politicians' hands, government jobs stop being payback for winning an election. Employees answer not to the person who appointed them but to the system of exams and reviews, so they put their effort into the work for residents itself. Asking for a bribe at a counter or favoring supporters would close off their path to promotion. Experienced employees would also no longer be replaced all at once whenever the government changes, so knowledge needed for long-running work, such as running a clinic or managing water supply, builds up inside the office. Because employees are protected when they refuse instructions that break the law, they can also hold back improper demands from above. This one measure helps with three problems at once: the quality of public services, preventing corruption, and local self-government. However much power is moved to localities, and however openly contracts are handled, the effect is weak if the inside of the office is filled with favoritism. In addition, if anyone can aim for a government job through open exams, the path to public work opens even to young people from families with no ties to powerful people.
DrawbacksReforms voters chose may be blocked by an office that will not move
A system that protects employees from politics can also move them away from the direction residents chose. Employees who are hard to fire and hard to replace can resist the reforms of a new mayor or governor and still keep their jobs. Even if residents choose change in an election, if senior officials keep defending the old ways, the election loses its meaning. Among employees whose status is protected, some will think they will not lose their jobs even without effort, and will let the quality of their work drop. Also, open exams look fair, but the people who do well on them are those from wealthy urban families who could get a good education. People from ethnic minorities in rural areas or from poor regions might be shut out of government, and the makeup of employees might lean toward one part of society. The independent personnel commission could also become a closed group beyond anyone's view and turn into an organization that protects its own. Political maneuvering over how its members are chosen cannot be avoided either. Cutting off politicians' favoritism goes hand in hand with building up the power of unelected officials.
Learn the background
Who chooses the people who work in government offices lies at the root of every problem in public administration. In many societies, politicians who win elections still routinely give government jobs to supporters, relatives, and people who gave them money. Those who get the jobs are loyal not to the residents but to the person who appointed them, and in the next election they also help gather votes. In this way, people with connections, not people who can do the work, run the offices, the quality of public services falls, and bribes over permits and contracts become more likely. Even if power is moved to local governments, if the same thing happens there, corruption simply moves from the center to the localities. This problem is hard to solve because the power to appoint is itself a source of politicians' power. A system that hands out jobs every time the government changes becomes a reward that the winning side finds hard to give up. On the other hand, separating employees from politics also brings the worry that unelected officials will gain too much power. Caught in this bind, reform has been proclaimed every time the government changed, and then shelved by the winners.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes