As Fiji moves closer to another election cycle, political debate is once again becoming louder, sharper, and increasingly visible on social media. Facebook pages, comment sections, and online forums have become battlegrounds for competing political views. While robust political discussion is a healthy feature of democracy, recent online exchanges involving some civil servants have raised important questions about political neutrality, professionalism, and public confidence in the institutions they serve. However, an important question deserves attention: How civil are our civil servants?
UNDER the Civil Service Act 1999, the civil service exists to support the Government in delivering services to the people of Fiji through a professional, merit-based, and accountable public administration. The Act reflects a long-standing principle that public servants must serve the government of the day professionally, impartially, and without political bias. Their loyalty is not to a political party, minister, or candidate, but to the people of Fiji and the institutions they serve.
In recent years, social media has blurred the boundaries between personal expression and professional responsibility. Platforms such as Facebook have become spaces where political opinions are freely expressed and debated, and civil servants are not exempt from this digital reality. While freedom of expression is a constitutional right, public servants occupy a unique position of trust. They are expected to administer government policies fairly and consistently, regardless of which political party is in power.
In practice, however, concerns have emerged over instances where public servants engage in openly partisan behaviour online – criticising political parties, challenging aspiring candidates, or participating in heated political exchanges. Even when expressed in a personal capacity, such conduct risks undermining the perception of neutrality that is essential to the integrity of the public service.
This concern is not about denying civil servants their rights as citizens. They are entitled to hold political opinions, vote, and participate in democratic life. The issue arises when those views are expressed publicly in a way that raises doubts about whether government institutions can remain impartial in the eyes of the public.
This is not a new warning. Fiji’s public service leadership has repeatedly reinforced the expectation of political neutrality. In November 2025, Acting Permanent Secretary for the Civil Service, Pita Tagicakirewa, reminded all civil servants that the service is “apolitical” and must function in a neutral and impartial manner, warning that political involvement could amount to misconduct under the Civil Service Act.
Similarly, in 2014, then Public Service Commission Permanent Secretary Parmesh Chand directed civil servants to stay away from politics, emphasising that neutrality, fairness, transparency, and accountability are fundamental principles of public service. More recently, former deputy prime minister Manoa Kamikamica reiterated that civil servants must perform their duties impartially regardless of personal political beliefs, while Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka emphasised during Civil Service Week 2024 that personal views must never interfere with official responsibilities.
Despite these repeated reminders, concerns persist. As election season approaches, the visibility of partisan commentary online raises legitimate questions about whether existing codes of conduct are being consistently understood, monitored, and enforced. The concern is not only about actual bias, but also about perception. In public administration, perception can be just as damaging as reality. A citizen who observes a public servant openly campaigning against a political party may reasonably question whether they will receive fair and impartial treatment.
This raises a broader governance question: How effectively are standards of conduct being upheld in the digital age? While the Public Service Commission has established clear codes of conduct, there is limited public clarity on how online breaches are identified, investigated, and addressed. Consistency and transparency in enforcement are essential if public confidence is to be maintained.
Around the world, politically neutral public services are recognised as a cornerstone of stable democratic governance. Governments change, ministers come and go, and political parties rise and fall. Yet the public service endures, providing continuity, institutional memory, and professional administration regardless of who holds office.
Fiji’s democracy is strengthened when citizens trust that public servants act fairly and without political influence. It is weakened when that neutrality is questioned, even informally, through perceptions shaped by online behaviour.
The solution is not to silence civil servants or deny them their democratic rights. Rather, it is to reinforce the principle that public office carries heightened responsibility. The greater the visibility of the role, the greater the expectation of restraint, professionalism, and sound judgment.
As political tensions rise in the lead-up to elections, all stakeholders have a role to play. Civil servants must remain mindful of their obligations under the Civil Service Act and codes of conduct.
The Public Service Commission must continue strengthening awareness and ensuring consistent enforcement. Citizens, too, should encourage respectful political discourse rather than rewarding hostility and division.
Ultimately, the question is not whether civil servants have political opinions.
The question is whether they can consistently separate those opinions from their public duties.
For the sake of public confidence in Fiji’s institutions and the strength of its democracy, one hopes the answer remains a clear and confident yes.
AVENAI SERUTABUA is a youth advocate and a regular contributor to this newspaper. The views expressed herein are his and not of this newspaper.
