Yesterday's story about the plummeting morale in the Civil Service due to political interference should set alarm bells ringing throughout the community.

This is a subject that this newspaper has been watching for some time.

It's worth taking a moment to look at how the Civil Service is structured under the Bermuda system, adopted from the Westminster system in the United Kingdom.

Unlike for example, the United States where political appointees populate the top posts of federal and state bureaucracies, Commonwealth countries have largely opted for a model in which the public service is supposed to be non-partisan in order to enable it to serve whichever party forms the government of the day.

In general terms, civil servants are supposed to advise Ministers on policy options, and once the Minister has decided on a policy, to implement it. This is important; civil servants are not supposed to make the policies themselves and Ministers and other politicians are not supposed to get involved directly in its execution and administration.

That is a largely sound, albeit sometimes frustrating process. Ministers may ignore sound advice for political or personal reasons. And civil servants may frustrate their political masters when policies are not implemented as effectively or speedily as they would like.

But the system does provide a level of protection for both, not only when governments change, but when concerns about political interference, cronyism and the like are broached. In recent years, the Progressive Labour Party government does appear to have adopted the habit of parachuting in people from the private sector into top jobs who could be accused of politically favouring the incumbents.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with bringing in people from the private sector when it is done judiciously, or conversely, civil servants working in the private sector for a time before returning to more senior posts in the public service. It can bring new ideas and sometimes more efficient ways of doing things. But it also runs the risk of frustrating career civil servants who see the way to the top blocked, or come to the conclusion that they must put a party before the public.

The PLP would no doubt argue, as usual, that the United Bermuda Party did the same thing. What did happen to some extent is that civil servants used to serving the same party for 30-odd years became comfortable dealing with more or less the same viewpoint. But by and large, civil servants defended their independence in a way that does not seem to be the case, at least according to Bermuda Public Service Union general secretary Ed Ball.

Mr. Ball told The Royal Gazette: "The union has definitely received increasing complaints about political interference, bullying and person's employment contracts being cancelled. ... What's concerning is the civil service is supposed to be apolitical and free of political interference. They serve the Government of the day and when we see allegations we have to take them seriously. It means persons might be asked to go against directives on how the day-to-day operations of their department are to be carried out."

Mr. Ball's statements deserve to be taken seriously, and he does say that Cabinet Secretary Kenneth Dill is doing just that. But the concern should be that the Civil Service's integrity and independence needs to be protected; once lost, it will be well nigh impossible to regain it.