A Public Service That Looks Like the Public

17/2/2025

Representative bureaucracy is not a fashionable add-on to modern administration. It is a core democratic principle.

First articulated by J. Donald Kingsley in 1944 and later developed by scholars such as Mosher, Selden, Meier, and O’Toole, the theory argues that public institutions work better and hold greater legitimacy when they reflect the diversity of the populations they serve.

This representation can take a passive form, where the demographic composition of the bureaucracy mirrors that of the wider community, or an active form, where public servants use their roles to advocate for the interests of the groups they share lived experience with. When both forms are present, institutions tend to earn greater trust and deliver services that are more responsive and inclusive.

The image that comes to mind is one of weaving: The state as a harakeke cloak, woven from many strands. Each thread contributes its strength, its colour and its story. People do not want to be invited into a system that sees them as outsiders or anomalies. They want to recognise themselves in the patterns of public life. They want to know that their voices are not only heard, but woven into the shape of the decisions that affect them.

In recent decades, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks have gained traction across many sectors, including the public service. These approaches echo and extend the logic of representative bureaucracy, offering a practical language and set of tools for improving organisational culture and performance.

At their best, DEI initiatives are not about superficial diversity metrics or internal staff satisfaction alone: they are also about redesigning public institutions to be more democratic, more capable, and more connected to the communities they serve.

The tension often raised in response is whether such frameworks compromise the merit principle.

This is an old worry, but not one grounded in evidence.

The merit principle, when properly understood, remains foundational. It rightly demands that appointments and promotions be based on capability, not patronage or political interference.

But capability is not an abstract quality. It is shaped by context, and by the requirements of the role. If public institutions serve diverse populations, then capability must include cultural competence, relational skill and an ability to work across difference with people not like themselves.

If the challenges of public service increasingly require collaboration, innovation and trust (and the evidence tells us they do) then merit must be assessed in ways that recognise those strengths.

Traditional measures of merit: such as formal qualifications, the right school, the right family, standardised testing or experience in elite institutions does not always identify the best person for the job.

At times, they do the opposite. I’ve got examples. I am sure you have too.

This is where the public service has faltered.

As part of the Public Service Act 2020 explicitedly signalled support for diversity, equity and inclusion, and the failed to reconcile those ambitions with its commitments to merit or to democratic responsiveness.

There has been little serious effort to build shared tools, offer structured guidance or develop a coherent approach across agencies.

The rhetoric has moved on, but the systems have not. Some agencies took the initiative. Others have been left without direction. The result is uneven progress, widening gaps, and a creeping loss of credibility.

The claim that representative bureaucracy undermines quality is, at this point, indefensible.

Studies have consistently shown that more diverse public services are often more effective, particularly in areas that rely on discretion, judgement, and engagement. A growing body of research confirms that diversity improves decision-making and strengthens institutional resilience. It does not mean lowering standards. It means rethinking how we define excellence in the first place.

Because the implementation work has not been done across the public service system, the contextual and political challenge now is not whether representation and merit can coexist, but how they can be explained. One practical challenge is building the infrastructure, leadership and accountability to make that coexistence real. This means acknowledging that representative bureaucracy is not a symbolic gesture but a serious part of democratic design. The other practical challenge means understanding DEI not as a side project, but as a critical lever for better public services. And it means creating the conditions in which all public servants, regardless of background, can succeed on fair terms and contribute fully, while also being able to point to improved institutional performance and better outcomes for people and the communities they live in.

When public institutions are woven with intention, care, and respect, the result is something strong and enduring. Something that protects. Something that stewards.

A public service that reflects the people: in all their differences and potential is not just more legitimate, its more capable, more trusted and more democratic.

It is not enough to invite people to the table. We must remake the table so that everyone can see their own strand in the weave.

The public service has had ample opportunity to act. It has made its commitments known. But commitment without capability is not leadership. And strategy without implementation is not reform. If we want a public service that looks like the public, we must move beyond statements and start weaving.