Administration Dichotomy: Pros and Cons - Assignment Example

The second challenge is operational to find out how these policies could be implemented in an efficient way, with minimal wastage of resources. Since its conception, the concept of disassociation of politics and administration has been a topic accruing a lasting debate. The supporters of administrative dichotomy believe that since one primary objective of politicians in a democratic society is to get elected, so if the politics and administration are not separated, the politicians may misuse their influence to make public administrators function in a manner that may attract immediate public support and popularity, though not being most beneficial and efficient (Peters, 2001).

So the provision of administrative dichotomy allows the administrators to operate in a politically neutral manner, carrying out policies in ways that are objective and efficient, without bothering about political losses or gains. The detractors of this concept believe that administrative dichotomy is an impractical concept. They argue that the primary duty of politicians is public service. As public approaches politicians mostly pertaining to issues associated with policy administration, so if the politicians do not have a say in the implementation and administration of the envisaged policies, they simply cannot serve the masses, as is expected of them (Peters, 2001).

Pragmatically speaking, the administrative dichotomy is not practical and workable. Politicians do need to be informed about the policy administration, to assure that it is working in the public interest. Eventually, if the administration goes lousy, it is the politicians who are answerable to the masses. On the other side, public administrators, going by their expertise and experience, are mostly well informed about the actual feasibility of a specific policy and the grass-root level intricacies associated with it.

Thus, it is imperative to allow public administrators a say in policy formulation. To assure public welfare, politics and administration ought to work in tandem and coordination with each other. The administrative dichotomy has its advantages in the sense that it assures that administration is carried out on the principles of merit and efficiency, without the influence of partisan politics. Yet it is counterproductive in the sense that it hampers the requisite coordination and cooperation between the tasks of policy formulation and implementation, giving way to glitches and public unrest.

For example, if a government comes out with a revised law and order policy, it is imperative for it not only to assure that this policy is effective on papers but also to look to it that it is perceived by the people as being effective. Hence, the policy framers need to have a say in the law and order administration. However, too much political interference in the law and order machinery is akin to having a police state.