The political power of bureaucracy

BIG BROTHER

Alex F. Patio

== If bureaucracies are political as well as administrative institutions, then, the question is not whether they possess political clout, but how much clout===

Bureaucracy does, of course, possess political power, that point is not in contention. Although bureaucrats are not elected, they are not apolitical. The commitment of civil service professionals to serve elected officials does not mean they are without their own political aims.

The fact that agencies implement legislation does not translate into passivity with regard to formulating or shaping policy.

“The lifeblood of administration is power. Bureaucracies inevitably wield power, for these constitute mobilization of resources that can be used to allocate political values, that is, determine public policy. They develop distinctive institutional points of view on what policies are deemed in the public interest and then push within political arenas to advance these viewpoints. Moreover, agencies are allied with elected officials and external political groups as well as opposed by them, and thus engage fully in the political conflict that inevitably envelopes those possessing power.

If bureaucracies are political as well as administrative institutions, then, the question is not whether they possess political clout, but how much clout. As would be expected, critics of bureaucracy believe the amount is far too great.

To them, bureaucracy at the least commands dangerous concentrations of power and in all likelihood is capable of sabotaging democracy itself.

The classic statements on the subject are bureaucracy has been and is a power. Instrument of the first order – for the one who controls the bureaucratic apparatus. Under normal conditions, the power position of a fully developed bureaucracy is always over-towering.

The political master finds himself in the position of the dilettante who stands opposite the expert, facing the trained official who stands within the management of administration.

Are these fears, expressed in relation to authoritarian government, applicable to a democratic one?

Many observers seem to think so. In fact a minor publishing bonanza in the field of political science is based on a preoccupation with the extent of bureaucratic power. The position is commonly taken that this power is dangerous, lacks legitimacy, and is insufficiently controlled by elected officials.

The study of bureaucracy is a study of political power. Whatever we feel about bureaucracy, there is one reaction we all share. We want to control it. It is widely agreed – even among those who disagree on most other political issues – that something must be done to get the bureaucracy under control. When the legitimacy of a government derives from the consent of the governed, the problem becomes not merely an inability to get the governmental apparatus to act in ways the leaders or citizens wish but also a challenge to the fundamental nature of that government. Hence in a bureaucratic system there is a tension between bureaucratic politics and political authority gained as a result of the democratic struggle for power.

Unanimity does not reign on the subject, however democracy would have no change to survive without bureaucracy because it would not be able to carry out the programmatic promises of its elected leaders. It is impossible for administrators to receive prior instructions for all or even many of their actions, because of the ever-changing nature of conditions being faced. Therefore, to be responsible, they must frequently act within their own discretion, utilizing all available knowledge as interpreted by expertise and giving proper regard to existing community preferences.

We may ask whether the obsession with controlling bureaucracy is counterproductive in the sense that it can hurt the quality of what is being controlled. “Scapegoating” bureaucracies and punitive arbitrary personnel actions against senior civil servants place effective continuity of government operations in jeopardy. The effects of various means of controlling the bureaucracy tend to over-control agencies to the detriment of creativity and effectiveness.

Rather than impose coercive “muscles” on them so much, greater use of less compulsory, intimidating, and injurious controls which may be called “jawboning” and “prayers”.

Too much micromanagement and “compliance accountability” can cause administrators to be timid rather than accountable in more important ways (i.e., performing well and possessing the capacity to act.)

Policy is not only advocated in bureaucracy, it is analyzed; the long view is institutionalized more fully and the anticipated impacts are assessed more rigorously in bureaucracy than in my other sector of the system – legislative staff, think tanks, and interest groups notwithstanding.

In its mundane, imperfect, and “dirty hands” way, bureaucracy keeps working on Philippines’ future.