Public Employees Restrictions on Political Activity in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom

Abstract The political rights of public employees vary greatly in scope and depth across democratic societies. While some countries balance the need for a neutral government with the rights of its employees, others fail to provide meaningful avenues for expression of political activities. As the civil service has grown and become more vocal, the government’s desire for an impartial government has grown with it. Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, three Westminster-style governments who evolved from a once singular legal system, have adopted laws and regulations to address their employees’ political activities with varying effectiveness and form. This Article will analyze each country’s legal framework for these restrictions, within their larger free speech regime. In particular, this Article will use candidacy and social media activity as a lens to examine these restrictions and provide examples for how these restrictions most commonly effect civil servants’ political activities. Although each regime has successes and failures at balancing the government’s need for impartiality with the civil service’s rights to expression, Canada has most successfully established a balance between the government’s interests in neutrality with their employee’s rights to political expression.