Why Is Bureaucracy's Relationship to Democracy So Conflicted - Essay Example

WHY IS BUREAUCRACYS RELATIONSHIP TO DEMOCRACY SO CONFLICTED? By Business The of the School The and State Where It Is Located The Date WHY IS BUREAUCRACYS RELATIONSHIP TO DEMOCRACY SO CONFLICTED? Introduction The relationship between bureaucracy and democracy continues to face diverse conflicts. The relationship is fundamentally a paradox because of the emotional and societal interests involved. As one develops, the other is likely to be impaired. It is nearly impossible to have a democratic state that satisfies both the interest of a government and that of the people. There are several concerns of tension, disagreement, and conflict involved in issues pertaining to bureaucracy. Mild opposition and fierce public outrage characterize such disagreements in the society. There are several laws that are infringed upon by bureaucratic procedures that may be considered high-handed. Both democracy and bureaucracy present unethical properties in the political arrangement. Bureaucracy’s relationship to democracy is so conflicted because of the paradoxical relationship that involves satisfying both the emotional and societal interests. Structural modification has a considerable impact on human interaction and individuality. This is emphasized by George Ritzer, a renowned sociologist who explores the concept of McDonaldization in terms of the cultural context and rational thinking. In his book “The McDonaldization of society” Ritzer explores how the philosophies of fast-food restaurants define the American culture. In his opinion, McDonalds has a particular pattern of entry into any region that often results in an integrated consumer pattern and the westernization of the culture that is invaded (Ritzer, 1993, 9). The society does not change in a bureaucratic manner as previously suggested by another renowned social theorist, Max Webber. Instead, his theory mostly emphasizes on the repetitive nature of actions by both consumers and McDonald’s workforce. For instance, in terms of service, one is likely to receive the same service in any branch, and the employees are likely to use the same recipe and perform the same tasks in the preparation of food. In essence, this means that rational systems may create an awkward environment based on bureaucracy. This means that democracy is significantly undermined because of the repetitiveness in actions. There are no alternatives presented to guarantee a bureaucratic environment. According to Ritzer, traditional means of thinking are undermined by the societal concerns promoted by bureaucracy based on social control and productivity. The bureaucracy associated with most decision-making processes mean that there will always be interests that are not satisfied and changes in ideology among a certain tradition. The need for bureaucracy at the societal level cannot be understated. Bureaucracy is virtually indispensable in the quest to realize social order and proper governance in any democratic culture. Democracy in government can only be realized if transparency and oversight exists. Unfortunately, this means that bureaucracy will be at an unreasonable level. Paul du Gay’s confrontational read “In Praise of Bureaucracy” emphasizes this in terms of the traditional ethical approaches to governance. In his opinion, there are bureaucratic procedures that were instituted centuries ago, but are still relevant in the present societal context (Gay, 2000, 8). Such bureaucratic procedures previously promoted an accountable democratic government that is able to provide a society that has equitable opportunities for its inhabitants. Impersonalism and red tape are two defects that have a considerable effect on bureaucracy. To serve commercial interests, public bureaucracy is placed under government control. This furthers Max Weber’s opinion on bureaucracy and undermines the morality of the concept. According to Gay, in a democratic life, bureaucracy occupies a uniquely necessary place. Regrettably, dictatorship seems to be the only form of governance that can ensure bureaucracy, as long as it discourages negative traits such as capitalism. There is a tension that happens between capitalism and democracy. Similar to the conflict between bureaucracy and democracy, capitalism cannot subsist in a society that has democratic ambitions. Bureaucratic procedures further this conflict that exists in the quest by managers to have control of their workforce. Bureaucratic control was developed in the quest to prevent any measures to counter capitalism, which is against democracy. This means that bureaucracy in actual sense does not support a democratic state. Through bureaucracy, more control is established over the masses. Richard Edwards in his book “Contested Terrain” supports the aspect of structural control as a concern for the existing engagement between bureaucracy and democracy (Edwards, 1979). Through bureaucracy in control measures, it has become nearly impossible to fight capitalism owing to the subdivision of the working class. Monopoly and competition mean that bureaucratic tendencies continue to undermine democratic procedures. Democracy can only improve in terms of governance rather than economic prosperity. In essence, economic prosperity means that there will be bureaucratic procedures to satisfy such interests. Social classes contributed to bureaucracy because those of higher social classes felt more powerful and they influenced the society. There was a distinct alteration between the opinions of Marx and those of Weber. From Weber’s point of view, market position was the criterion used to identify class and not the value of property that one had. However, this seemed to complicate the social structure due to the multiplication of hierarchies. Weber also made it clear that class was not the only feature that divide people, according to social status, other aspects included power and esteem. Status groups included communities that were brought together by consumption patterns and lifestyle instead of the common market position and property. These social groups were against interference from people different social class. Weber claimed that bureaucracy led people to realise their own will and interest in communal action even if the people resisted. Capitalism was common among the Protestants and most of them were entrepreneurs. The religious goal of salvation had turned into a goal of materialistic success and making more profits. The aspect of self-will had replaced the traditional aspect of self-sufficiency in the economy (Jay, 1993, 176-189). Even economically weak communities could administer influence because they exhausted class. The leaders emphasized on class models because they feared losing their positions. Hierarchical systems prevented democracy because leaders emerged from the same social class. Presently, the need for financial reforms has furthered the conflicting nature of bureaucracy and democracy. Consumer interests have been weakened by policies such as that of Obama’s administration, which support the disorganized constitution against the valid claims of protestors. Most of the financial reforms are based on bureaucratic procedures that are done without much consultations. The constitution promotes such practices, further undermining democracy. Most bureaucracies are dysfunctional processes that have negative effects on both the individual and corporate level. In “Too Much, Too Little, And Too Often: A Critique of Du Gay’s Analysis of Enterprise” by Valarie Fournier and Christopher Grey, it is emphasized that the reduction of bureaucracies can promote excellence and opportunities which eventually enhance democracy. Paul du Gay tries to analyse techniques through which people can move from bureaucracy to excellence as well as ways, which the employers can be re-imagined as entrepreneurs. Du gay identifies bureaucracy, not just as organizational form, but a set of attributes and values. He terms democracy as outdated and unresponsive to change. According to him, to erase bureaucracy, one has to deal with the external environment that supports and encourages it (Fournier and Grey, 1999, 622). Bureaucracy has entangled organisational and is evident from the relationship of between individuals and between institutions. The managers are seen to be in different class compared to the employers who are ignored. Gay emphasizes in the entrepreneurship discourse that the character of the employee should not be seen as alone among a plurality of ethics and personality but should be imagined as an ontology priority. By viewing employees in this perspective, there will be democracy and the organization will work towards achieving excellence. Professionals are beginning to align themselves along the market forces and are advocating for morality (Fournier and Grey, 1999, 624). They are resisting some bureaucracy rules imposed on them by the management and they want democracy. Conclusion The conflicting nature of the relationship of bureaucracy and democracy means that there will always be biased decision-making and conflicts. The two concepts are unlikely to exist together as evidenced by Richard Edwards. The relationship between the two remains to be complex, especially with the recent renewed interest on economic advancements. Bureaucracy supports concepts such as capitalism that undermine democracy. Economic growth cannot be sustainable without proper governance, and bureaucracy cannot be sustainable without policies that promote democracy. Any democratic structure must be ready to satisfy the needs of its citizens, incorporate them in decision-making, promote their freedom, and listen to their grievances and protests. To realize success in most areas in terms of economic advancement, it is necessary that bureaucracy is reduced and democracy is promoted. Public bureaucracies have a significant impact on the populace, and as a result, they must be assessed systematically. Bureaucracy involves a give-and-take relationship among managers, decision-makers, and individuals that often intend to serve personal interest. It is not a form of governance, rather, it is a way that governance is done, mostly by elected officials. Bureaucracy is influenced by political interests, and it presents a major threat to the realization of democracy in any region. List of references Edwards, R., 1979, Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Fournier, V. and Grey, C. 1999, Too Much, Too Little, And Too Often: A Critique of Du Gay’s Analysis of Enterprise. Organization, 1999 6: 107. DOI: 10.1177/135050849961005 Gay, P., 2000, In Praise of Bureaucracy. London: SAGE Publications. Jay, L., 1993, Theorizing Classical Sociology. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Ritzer, G., 1993, The McDonalization of society, California: Pine Forge Press. Read More