From Nonpartisan to Partisan-Inclusive: Rethinking Public Service for a Polarized Era

From Nonpartisan to Partisan-Inclusive: Rethinking Public Service for a Polarized Era

Public administration has long emphasized nonpartisanship as a foundational value. This commitment has important roots; the legitimacy of public institutions depends on fairness and adherence to the rule of law. But in today’s deeply polarized environment, nonpartisanship alone is no longer sufficient to sustain public trust. If institutions are to be trusted across the political spectrum, they must also be understood, experienced, and shaped by people across that spectrum.

That is why we believe it is time to move from a strictly nonpartisan model of public service to one that is partisan-inclusive.

By partisan-inclusive, we do not mean introducing partisan bias into public administration. Rather, we mean intentionally engaging individuals from across the political landscape, Democrats, Republicans, independents, and others, in the learning, practice, and leadership of public service. This approach recognizes a simple but often overlooked reality: public institutions are strongest when people with different political perspectives see themselves reflected in, and responsible for, their success.

Our perspective is informed by our own experiences across the political spectrum. As former elected officials from different parties, alongside an independent colleague, we have seen firsthand how mistrust in public systems often stems not only from how those systems operate, but from who feels included in them. When individuals or communities perceive public institutions as dominated by “the other side,” skepticism can take root, even when those institutions are functioning as intended.

A partisan-inclusive approach begins with understanding that individuals show up as their whole selves to educational spaces and work. Part of their identity is reflected in their voting behavior and public engagement. That identity matters, but it does not determine how they will act in a public service role. Someone can have a particular partisan affiliation and still understand that their role is to serve all people fairly. Our identities are not separate from our professional roles, and our professional roles require us to serve people of all identities. In public administration, we should actively seek out students, practitioners, and partners with a range of political affiliations, including those who may not traditionally see themselves reflected in public administration spaces. The goal is not to persuade, but to invite participation—to ensure that individuals are not merely observers of public systems, but informed contributors and, potentially, future leaders within them.

This shift has several important benefits.

First, it helps ensure that the next generation of public servants reflects the political diversity of the communities they serve. A workforce that includes varied perspectives is better equipped to anticipate concerns, communicate effectively, and serve with credibility.

Second, it builds trust from within. Trust in public institutions cannot be imposed externally; it must be cultivated through lived experience. When individuals from across the political spectrum engage directly with public systems—learning how they work, contributing to their improvement, and holding them accountable—they become credible voices within their own communities.

Third, it strengthens both technical competence and cross-partisan credibility. Public service education has always excelled at developing technical skills. A partisan-inclusive approach adds another dimension: the ability to navigate politically diverse environments with respect, understanding, and legitimacy. In an era where public servants are increasingly viewed through partisan lenses, this capability is not optional—it is essential.

Too often, nonpartisan environments are interpreted, implicitly or explicitly, as requiring people to set aside an important part of their identity: their political perspective. While neutrality in decision-making is critical, it should not come at the cost of authenticity or belonging. When people feel they must conceal their viewpoints to participate, institutions lose not only trust, but also the richness of insight that comes from diverse lived experiences. By contrast, when individuals are welcomed as whole participants—including their political identities—they are more likely to engage deeply, contribute honestly, and remain committed to public service over time.

In the end, a partisan-inclusive approach is about shared ownership. When people from different political backgrounds see themselves as part of the system—when they have helped shape it, understand it, and believe in its fairness—they are more likely to trust it. And trust, more than any procedural safeguard, is the foundation of effective governance.

Public administration has always adapted to meet the needs of the moment. Today, that moment calls for a more expansive vision—one that embraces the full diversity of the public we serve, including diversity of political perspective. Moving from nonpartisan to partisan-inclusive is not a departure from our core values. It is a necessary step to ensure those values endure.

Shannon Portillo is an Academy Fellow and Director and Coor Presidential Chair of the School of Public Affairs in Watts College of Public Service at Arizona State University. Bill Gates is Executive Director of the Mechanics of Democracy Lab and a Professor of Practice in the School of Public Affairs in Watts College of Public Service at Arizona State University. Thom Reilly is an Academy Fellow and Director of the Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy and a Professor in the School of Public Affairs in Watts College at Arizona State University.