It's generally referred to as "a principled stance." The same result will happen either way; this way, you get to tell your kids you made the right choice.
to me, the more principled stance would be to stay and resist until they are forced to fire you, which makes them look bad. I would have no qualms about telling my kids I made the right choice in that scenario. But others have pointed out that doing this might lead to a career civil servant losing their retirement benefits, and I can understand that that is a lot to throw away for resistance actions that will ultimately change very little.
Probably has something to do with retirement funds. If you have been paying into the system for 30+ years you need that money when you retire and don’t want to see it wiped out or reduced if you are fired.
Being principled in government jobs has a high cost.
.. One could say the same of participation in the electoral process. Taking your ball and going home doesn't work any better as a voter than as an official.
i don't really agree that "one could say the same" because these are totally different situations. A voter is not a civil servant. A voter does not get paid to vote. Most voters did not swear an oath to defend the constitution (unless they are a naturalized citizen). A single voter also has no power to block an insurgent force from taking over key government systems, unlike a civil servant.
As much as that is a wonderful sentiment. Retirement vs firing might make a substantial difference in their quality of life i. Retirement whereas getting fired is a symbolic gesture that may or may not have any impact at all. I can understand trying to make sure that personally you come out as on as possible.