On the outskirts of any city, there is a school. It has teachers, children, a librarian, an accountant, and a cafeteria manager. They are all part of a single system in which the state takes on the task of providing public goods. At first glance, everything seems fine: the school is running, salaries are being paid, and rules are being followed. But if you look more closely, who exactly decides how this system is organized? Who determines the length of the school day, the rules for hiring staff, and the wage fund?
The answer may seem surprising. In many countries, publicly elected representatives do not make these decisions, but through negotiations between government agencies and civil service unions. Moreover, decisions are often made not in open parliamentary debates but in backroom deals between government officials and union leaders. This is how agreements come into being, the content of which determines policy, the budget, and the quality of public services.
The problem is that such agreements are concluded with the participation of groups that are not elected and are not accountable to society. A trade union can defend the interests of its members. It is not obliged to seek a compromise between different sections of society or to consider taxpayers’ views. This is where the first crack in the structure of democracy becomes apparent. It arises where closed agreements replace open representation.
Now, let’s examine why collective bargaining in the public sector, even without the right to strike, undermines the fundamental principles of democracy and why, to understand this, it is not necessary to study statistics or collect examples of ineffective reforms. It is enough to analyze the institutional logic of these processes.
One Party, Two Accountability Structures
In the classic model of liberal democracy, power is delegated through elections. Those who determine policy and allocate the budget must be elected by citizens and be accountable to them. This condition provides one accountability loop: from society to parliament, from parliament to the government, from the government to specific decisions.
Collective bargaining in the public sector creates a second loop. A trade union is a private organization whose mission is to protect the interests of a limited group of workers. It does not represent society as a whole. However, when a trade union gains the right to negotiate with the state and influence the allocation of resources, it begins to perform a political function without political legitimacy. The advocate of one group’s interests gains leverage comparable to the powers of representative bodies.
This is where the institutional shift takes place. Political power begins to be shared with an actor who has not been elected and who is not obliged to consider the general interest. This is not a “lobby” in the classical sense because lobbyists do not sign contracts on behalf of the state and do not receive legally binding privileges. This is already a distribution of power, but without a mechanism of public control.
When Power Leaves Without Elections
What exactly changes when collective bargaining becomes part of government? On paper, it’s just about discussing working conditions. In practice, it’s a mechanism with rules, logic, and consequences.
First, the distribution of power itself is being rethought. Under the laws of most countries, the power to make rules, set salaries, and form the budget belongs to those elected. However, the introduction of negotiations changes this equation. Some of these powers are transferred to organizations whose leaders do not have a mandate from society and are not obliged to consider the interests of people outside their group.
Second, a permanent mechanism of influence is formed that is not subject to change of power. Even if citizens elect new representatives, many system parameters will remain the same because they are fixed in agreements that a unilateral decision cannot revoke. The new government must return to the negotiating table to change such conditions. This creates a paradox: the elected government has less power than a party that no one elected.
Third, collective bargaining makes an exception for one social group, turning it into a special class with access to a unique instrument of influence. Neither parents, taxpayers, nor patients can dictate terms to the state, but public sector workers have this opportunity through their unions.
Here’s what this institutional shift looks like:
What happened before negotiations were introduced:
- The parliament or local council passes laws.;
- The budget is approved by open vote.
- All groups of citizens have equal access to the discussion of decisions.
- Those responsible are elected and can be dismissed.
What happens after:
- A significant part of the decisions is transferred to the sphere of closed agreements.
- Budget parameters are determined not by public debate, but by deals.
- Participation in negotiations is limited, with access restricted to trade unions and officials.
- Trade unions are not elected but influence policy directly.
This redistribution turns the state into an arena for special interests, undermining the very idea of universal equality before the institutions.
When Decisions Are Made Without Witnesses
Openness is one of the core values of a democratic system. People value the opportunity to participate in discussions, share opinions, follow developments, and understand how rules and budgets are formed. Even if the majority vote goes against them, everyone can be confident that their position has been heard.
With the advent of collective bargaining, much has changed. Instead of open discussions between elected representatives and the public, there are now closed-door negotiations. Discussions are held between union representatives and the administration, often without the participation of third parties. This is how issues that directly affect everyone are decided: wages, working conditions, the length of the school year, and the allocation of resources.
The procedure takes on the characteristics of a closed system. Citizens are deprived of information about key points of the negotiations, do not know the details of the agreements, and have no opportunity to influence the discussion. Negotiations are lengthy and often take place in a non-public format. Traditional forms of participation, such as public discussions or open voting, are pushed aside.
This transition from open to limited participation creates three problems:
- The opportunity to influence the process in advance disappears. Society only sees the outcome when nothing can be changed.
- The terms of the discussion are determined not by parliamentary procedure, but by the rules of bargaining between the two sides.
- The opportunity to express an opinion remains formal, but loses meaning because decisions are made behind closed doors rather than in open sessions.
A democratic system is formed not through approval of the result, but through participation in achieving it. When this process becomes inaccessible, trust disappears, and disappointment sets in. Issues essential to the entire community are discussed and decided within a narrow procedure inaccessible to the majority.
This format of negotiations limits citizens’ ability to influence decisions that affect schools, hospitals, transportation, and other areas. Society loses the opportunity to participate, loses confidence in equality, and loses control over its own life. This is a different principle altogether. Instead of universal participation, a closed system is formed in which significant decisions are made without witnesses.
How Should a Public Servant Act?
What should such an administrator do? How can balance be restored if the system already operates according to a logic far from democratic?
Here are a few steps that will help regain the initiative and minimize the consequences of institutional bias:
1. Define the boundaries of competence
Each agreement must undergo legal review to ensure that it complies with the powers granted by law. Public officials are obliged to defend the boundaries of their responsibility. Anything that affects budget allocation or changes the rules must remain within the control of elected bodies.
2. Create alternative channels for participation
If some decisions are made behind closed doors, other formats for discussion should be expanded: public hearings, surveys, and feedback platforms. The greater the external pressure, the more difficult it will be to conclude backroom deals.
3. Publish the details of the agreements
Information is the leading resource of democratic governance. If the negotiation process is limited, its outcome should be as transparent as possible. Any public agreement concluded on behalf of the authorities should be available for analysis and discussion.
4. Do not shift political responsibility
Even if conditions are imposed during negotiations, elected representatives are responsible for their implementation. It is essential to state this clearly: decisions taken without public participation do not reflect the majority’s will. This helps to maintain legitimacy and readiness for change.
Democracy Requires Clear Rules
Collective bargaining in the public sector has become the norm in many countries. It is seen as a way to protect workers’ rights, improve working conditions, and reduce conflicts. However, society has overlooked essential aspects such as transparency, equality, and accountability in institutionalizing it. A second level of decision-making has emerged: closed and inaccessible to the majority.
Today, public employees operate in a system where power has become distributed without an open mandate. Their task is not to break this system but to remind us what genuine public governance is based on. It requires a single line of accountability, equal access to decisions, and that power remain in the hands of the elected, not the elected by the elected.