The Conflict Between Bureaucracy and Democracy - Essay Example

Bureaucracy and Democracy The Conflict between Bureaucracy and Democracy The bureaucracy-democracy relationship has yielded heated debate among scholars. Anthony (1971, p. 124) defines democracy as a political system which gives constitutional chances for changing managing officials. In addition, it allows the largest possible population to influence major political activity by choosing contenders for the office. As cited in Ritzer (2000 p. 74), Abraham Lincoln considered democracy as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. According to Fournier and Grey (1996, p. 110), bureaucracy is seen as a constituent of an organization in which hierarchal ranking and rules are followed to achieve efficiency. Over the years there have been arguments that it is not logical for a bureaucratic structure, and a democratic structure to be compatible in one organization. One outdoes the other. They cannot coexist. The essay clarifies the incompatibility of the two, with clear illustrations and a few examples. The centre of the discussion is to show why bureaucracy and democracy conflict. Democracy originated from western countries as movements called for equality, expression and freedom of speech. It dominated after the Second World War when many of citizens rights were denied. Democracy restored individual dignity and majority participation. The concept of democracy means that all parties involved should be informed on the issues affecting them directly. Bureaucracy is Weber’s brain child. He asserts that bureaucracy is an organized way of running an organization. An organization contains a hierarchy which should be followed in order of importance (Paul, 2000, p. 16). This means that authorities should be the ones to make decisions. In the event that they feel incapacitated, they should consult a higher authority. People in these positions are paid and are full time officials who form the chain of command. Bureaucracy is mainly concerned with administration, controlling, managing and coordinating of a complex series of tasks. Bureaucracy represents oligarchy, separation of ownership and rationality (Bruce and Nyland, 2011, p. 383). Democracy and bureaucracy hardly coexist in society, and their compatibility raises debate. They are two conflicting views. Richard (1999, p. 133) argues that bureaucracy is inevitably represented the interest of the minority population which directly opposes democracy, which focuses on majority rule and freedom for all. Bureaucracy state is perceived as an invention by a capitalist society with the aim of manipulating and turning the majority into proletariats. According to Peter (2006, p. 2), public meetings are meant just for show while the real businesses are conducted behind closed doors by the state governing bureaucracy or even company manages. Therefore, the bureaucratic structure is an organ of certain class dominance, an organ of oppression of one class by another. Hence bureaucracy cannot operate hand in glove with democracy. According to Robert Michels as cited in Gerth and Wright (1948, p. 255), in his study of European socialist studies and parties and trade unions, the organizations that had the aim of overthrowing the capitalist state and create a democratic society was not a resemblance of what actually happened. It was a duplication of the capitalist bureaucracy which was not compatible with democracy. Gale (2001) supports those socialist states, like the former Soviet Union, used state power to maintain wealth, power of government and military leaders at the expense of the peoples wishes. There was a conflict between the people and government and hence compromising democracy. Just like authoritarian capitalist governments, the state supports the interest of capitalists regardless of having formal positions in governments. They suppress the will of the people. It is evident that bureaucracy and democracy are not compatible where the wishes of the people do not take paramount importance. It can be argued that organization or bureaucracy is the death knell of democracy. According to Blau (1970, p. 143), it is not feasible for a large number or group of people to run an organization. In addition to the impossibility of organizing a large number of people to run, it is cumbersome to involve many in decision making and time consuming. That will not get much done. Since direct democracy is not practical, it can only be achieved by some form of majority representative system. This is where delegates represent the many and execute their will. Larry (1999, p. 180) laments that, in many cases the delegates mean to amass wealth when in office. Leaders or the delegates are more likely to practise nepotism and favours based on ethnic background hence wishes of the people will not be represented. This directly opposes democracy. Democracy cannot be achieved if the will of the majority is not executed. The least they can do is go back and inform them on the course of action that they have chosen. For an organization to run efficiently there has to be a division of labour. This requires specialists in certain fields to run certain tasks. This involves coordination and control by an administrative department. As a result, it is inevitable to form a hierarchal bureaucracy in such an organization. Blau (1970, p. 143) postulates that the organization grows and hence the administrative duties proliferate to a point where some issues become incomprehensible to those without the knowledge. Those who do not understand the complexity have no choice but to leave the decision making to the leaders. Hence, the organization that was meant to represent the majority ends up in not involving them in decision making. Organizations result to oligarchy. It is ruled by a small elite group (Paul (2000, p. 17) argues that oligarchy sophisticates the democracy concept. Hence, due to the misgivings of the two, democracy and bureaucracy are not compatible. According to (Paul 2000, p. 15), in any bureaucratic organization, orders are usually vertical, that is from the top to bottom. Employees or people of lower rank are instructed without any prior consultation. Many organizations highly depend on orders from their superiors. According to Blau (1970, p. 144), individuality is suppressed in a bureaucratic organization as they depend on rules, and the advancement of any event depends on the judgement of the superiors. Subordinates end up bowing and scraping for their superiors while they assume an arrogant stance towards their own subordinates. Bureaucracy is hence a sworn enemy of individual liberty and initiative in a matter of internal policy, hence against democracy and, therefore, conflicts with bureaucracy. In a bureaucratic organization, there is the tendency to displace organizational goals by leadership. Leadership is established and honoured at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid. Edwards (1979, p. 123) argues that, in most cases, the leaders concentrate on the maintenance of power. Leaders mean to maintain the privilege that their position offers. Larry (1999, p. 180) adds that leaders have no tendency to take any action that will jeopardize the chances of maintaining their positions. This interferes with the organization’s priorities. Their decisions may end up hurting the company, but they do not pay attention to this. Most leaders learn the art of manipulation, controlling meetings, of applying and interpreting rules and proposing motions in the opportune moment. Their ability to control publications enables them to convey their views. Leaders have a significant say in the selection of officials. They hence choose those who stand behind their policies. Thus, leaders perceive the maintenance of the organization and their own interests indistinguishable. It is clear that the organization is essential to democracy, however, due technical and practical necessity, organizations adopt a bureaucratic structure. This produces oligarchy control, which brings the end of democracy. From another perspective, compatibility between bureaucracy and democracy does exist to a lesser extent. Gerth and Wright (1948, p. 255) are assertive that democracy cannot be achieved without organization. Weber believed that bureaucracy is essential for a society. In modern complex society, the only way individuals can achieve a voice to be heard is by coming together and form organizations to press and forward their views. This is relatively true for powerless working classes for whom coming together in masses is necessary. A good example is the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in Zimbabwe. It is rooted on democratic foundations. It is now a full blown democratic bureaucratic party. Ritzer (2000, p. 12) analyses the incompatibility of the two from a psychological perspective on the natural need for the masses to be led. He argues that democracy is a system in which power is exercised by the people as a whole. This does not mean that the people participate in the pronouncements and choices that affect them as a whole. Decision making is only possible in a small political entity. This forces the majority to choose or delegate their leaders. In the light, this can be viewed as the majoritys desire to have a common leader. When the delegates are in office, they then have to proceed with the setup of a bureaucratic structure. It is not disputable this is necessary. From this, we can contend that there is no bureaucracy without democracy. In other instances such as modern day societies, democracy is portrayed through the casting of a vote in ballot boxes to choose their leaders, board members choosing a company leader and even stakeholders participating in decisions. There are electoral processes whereby the contender with the highest number of votes or majority support wins the office. At the end of this process, the people give their representatives, and the government legal authority to rule over them; hence it will be democratic. The wishes of the people will have been respected. In this case, democracy and bureaucracy are compatible. In conclusion, democracy and bureaucracy seem to oppose each other such that they do not coexist in the same society. It seems that society has to choose between the two. However, from the arguments, it does seem inevitable to live our lives without a bureaucratic structure. Moreover, from a different perspective, as much as we all prefer a democratic structure, a bureaucratic system is of the essence in modern society. Mass populations have to be managed as we have seen. To avoid a negative bureaucratic system, we just have to uphold moral standards. With morals in check, the incompatible can coexist in the future. Reference List Blau, P, 1970. Bureaucracy in Dennis Wrong (ed) Max Weber, pp141-6 Bruce, K & Nyland, C, 2011. Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations Organization Studies, 32. Pp. 383 Edwards, R, 1979. Contested Terrain ch. 8 Bureaucratic Control: Policy No. 11 pp130-62 Fournier, V & Grey, C, 1996 Too Much, Too Little, and Too Often Organization. 6(1) Pp107-28. Gale, H, 2001. Socialism World of Sociology. Retrieved from Http://www.credoreference.com/entry/sharpewt/socialism Accessed 15 June 2011 Gerth H H & Wright M., 2001. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology p.253-264 and p. 196-245 Gerth, H. H. & Wright Mills C., 1948. From Max Weber Ch.8 Bureaucra­­­­cy, pp196-245 and Ch.10 The Meaning of Discipline, pp253 Giddens, A, 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An analysis of writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max, Weber. London: Cambridge University. pp 124-132, 163-168, 178-184 DuGay, P, 2000. In Praise of Bureaucracy. Sage: London Peters, L, 2006. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc. P. 1. Rick, L, 1999. Theorising Classical Sociology. London: Cambridge. P173-188 Ritzer, G, 2000. The McDonaldization of Society chapters. London: Sage publishers1 & 2. Pp 64-78 Richard, E, 1999. Contested Terrain. Chapter 8 pp. New York: Basic Books 123-134 Read More