The Foreign Service Journal, April 2012

A P R I L 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 7 The Foreign Service is often called “elitist,” particularly when it resists appointments made on the basis of patronage or favoritism rather than merit. Such efforts, frequently dis- missed as quixotic, also draw the caution that any resistance will it- self be seen as elitist behavior. A 2002 study of congressional staff attitudes toward the Foreign Service, funded by the Cox Foundation, found that most staffers believe the Foreign Service is “elitist” and “arrogant” — traits that alienate Congress. More re- cently, that same perception has been attributed to State Department lead- ership. In fact, today’s Foreign Service is more representative of the nation as a whole than ever before. So why does this prejudice persist? History offers a possible explana- tion. The modern American Foreign Service was established as a profes- sional diplomatic service by the For- eign Service Act of 1924, making the Department of State among the last parts of the federal government to move away from political patronage to- ward merit-based systems, a process initiated by the 1883 Pendleton Act. By 1937, nearly half of U.S. ambas- sadors were career Foreign Service members, but that trend reached its zenith soon after that. Since World War II, about one-third of U.S. am- bassadorships worldwide (and three- quarters of those in major posts) have been reserved for political appointees, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. By in- ternational standards, this is a very high proportion, and re- flects the continuing strength of the patronage system. This legacy sustains the image of the Foreign Service as an elitist institution, even though it long ago ceased to be the exclusive domain of the wealthy and politically well-con- nected. What do other diplomatic ser- vices do? In 2010 AFSA undertook a “benchmarking the competition” study. Like the United States, other major countries are grappling with challenges presented by technology, new global is- sues and, in some cases, significant generational change. They all empha- size high standards and tough require- ments for entry to build a corps of professionals able to meet the respon- sibility to conduct multifaceted diplo- macy abroad and provide policy and institutional leadership at home. They respect their diplomats for their pro- fessionalism and do not see them as elitist. The American Foreign Service should be no different. In the Foreign Service Act of 1980, Congress deemed “a career Foreign Service, character- ized by excellence and professional- ism” essential to the national interest, and affirmed that “the scope and com- plexity of the foreign affairs of the na- tion have heightened the need for a professional Foreign Service.” The act calls for its members to “be representative of the American people … knowledgeable of the affairs, cul- tures and languages of other countries, [and] available to serve in assignments throughout the world.” It also speci- fies that “the Foreign Service should be operated on the basis of merit prin- ciples” requiring “admission through impartial and rigorous examination…” Recognition of merit as the under- lying principle for advancement to po- sitions of responsibility is important for morale and esprit de corps. Resorting to patronage undermines both. Writing from a risk management perspective, Canadian diplomat Sam Hanson describes diplomacy as more complex than rocket science, observ- ing that “if you get rocket science wrong you lose your spacecraft and crew. If you get diplomacy wrong … you can get locked into wars with no way forward, no way out and no end in sight.” He concludes that “it is no more than prudent to take diplomacy as seriously as rocket science. Those who do not will have their heads handed to them by those who do.” Most countries take diplomacy se- riously and invest in top-notch, merit- based professional diplomatic services. Can we afford any less? P RESIDENT ’ S V IEWS Professionalism versus Patronage & Elitism B Y S USAN R. J OHNSON