Why is Bureaucracys Relationship to Democracy so Conflicted - Coursework Example

Why is bureaucracy’s relationship to democracy so conflicted? Introduction This paper seeks to answer an important question of the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy. The premise of the question is that in contemporary society there is much conflict between the two concepts in their application to modern institutions. Whereas bureaucracy is a way of doing things that represents order, discipline and authority, and well defined organizational structures, it is also widely criticized by many in current society for its tendency to stand in the way of progress and liberty. On the other hand, democracy represents active representation of the people in any given organizational environment. The representation is mainly through majority will of the people themselves. The major difference between bureaucracy and democracy as presented in this paper is that while the former represents structural authority which may or may not be sanctioned through majority will, democracy provides a particular set of people with the opportunity to choose their own authority and determine how their own structures will be ordered. However, as will be seen, the differences between bureaucracy and democracy are mainly ideological because neither of the two can exist without each other except in an authoritarian society. This paper will start by offering explanations of bureaucracy and democracy, comparing the two in terms of their implementation in society and examining the relationship between them. The paper will then venture to explain why the two systems of governance or leadership are so conflicted by examining the works of past scholars and giving various examples where the two systems interact. Bureaucracy and democracy are presented in this paper as being so intricately intertwined in modern society that irrespective of the existent ideological differences, existing evidence suggests that people have to settle for making the two to function together in a way that benefits society. Bureaucracy Bureaucracy in society and in organizations is a concept that has been examined by many scholars right through the 19th century. Max Weber provided the most elaborate and coherent explanation if a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracy as explained by Weber and many other scholars after him is a system of organizational governance or leadership that emphasizes organizational order and discipline entrenched in the respect for and adherence to institutional structures and authority. Bureaucracy lays emphasis on established operational structures and authorities rather than the people occupying those positions (Gay, 2000). Bureaucratic control attempts to make all functions of management routine much in the same way technical control makes all functions routine. There is a close relationship between capitalism and bureaucracy as the latter is seen in a capitalist system as the best method of organizational management that produces optimum environment for production and growth. One of the grievances put forward against bureaucracy is indeed that even though it gives not prominence to individual power and control, it is a much more powerful tool of capitalist control and authoritarianism as the nature of the system and structures of an organization is determined by a few people. Capitalists have retained overall control of enterprise’s operations through their power to establish rules and procedures that maintain a discipline they desire (Gerth and Wright, 2000). Many examples of bureaucratic control are evident in some of the largest and most powerful capitalistic enterprises in the world. This kind of control first emerged in organizations like IBM and Polaroid, where the management were free to introduce new structures and relations from top down. This was seen as a strategic choice to avoid labour unions and ensure that management retained greater power in labour-management relations. Currently there are many organizations worldwide that have institutionalized bureaucracy and optimized it to new levels that have not been experienced before. This has been well elaborated by Ritzer in his concept of McDonaldization of society, which is basically the extreme application of bureaucracy in all organizational functions with the aim of maximizing profits as has been perfected by McDonalds over the past half a century (Ritzer, 2011). Democracy While in a bureaucratic society or organization everybody is expected and conditioned to tow the line and conform to structures set by people higher in the organization, democracy presents the only system where members of the whole group or society have an input into what they desire. Democracy is considered by many, particularly in the capitalist majority of the world, as the best method of representation, leadership and organizational operation. Democracy enables people to choose by majority acclaim how they wish their organizations or societies to be governed, the people they wish to entrust with authority, how often such people can be changed and a raft of other privileges. It has been argued by some scholars that democracy is the lesser of all the other evils as it is the only way ‘the people’ can impose their will on issues affecting their lives (Fournier and Grey, 1999). While democracy enables institutions to operate in ways determined by majority, it has been proven time and again that in most cases it does not produce the best results for the majority, whether in society or in organizations. People placed in leadership through democracy often enjoy great power because they draw it from the majority; such power is most often abused to the detriment of an organization. In relation to that, democracy places too much responsibility on a few people and therefore an organization relies on the ability of such people to perform or do the right thing without which the outcomes can often be less than satisfying. Democracy has been described as not being favourable for discipline, which is termed as a very important component of every system that wishes to be productive (Gerth and Wright, 2000). Without discipline production in a capitalist system diminishes and there can be lack of order and respect for authority. For this reason and many others it has been observed over the years that societies and organizations have gradually and systematically merged aspects of democracy and bureaucracy to come up with a cleverly disguised system that satisfies the desire of the masses to have a voice in leadership and representation while at the same time ensuring that structures and processed necessary for optimum production are maintained (Edwards, 1979). Relationship between Bureaucracy and Democracy As pointed out, the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy has become increasingly intricate that the two virtually exist side by side in contemporary organizations and it becomes difficult to separate them. Perhaps this is the reason why the relationship between the two is also so conflicted, at best there is confusion among many people as to the nature of this relationship and at worst it is completely misunderstood. The operations of organizations in the modern capitalist economy depend on bureaucratic structures to survive and bring in profits and growth. Organizations such as McDonalds and Tacos thrive on extreme bureaucracy because of its efficiency and effectiveness in delivering organizational goals (Ritzer, 2011). Bureaucracy instils respect for structures and authority because it dehumanizes them so that people just submit to an authority or way of doing things irrespective of the person in authority because it is ‘just the way things work’. This system instils discipline necessary for effective functioning of the modern enterprise. According to Gerth and Wright (2000) the military discipline is the ideal model for the modern capitalist factory, as it was for the ancient plantation. The military discipline heavily employs bureaucratic structures. In his explanation of bureaucracy, Max Weber indicated that human beings had an inherent desire to submit to some kind of authority. This need for leadership and authority has largely informed the way bureaucratic structures have been fashioned throughout history, bureaucracy has taken advantage of need for authority to put in place systematic structures that aim to bring the best out of people. On the other hand, democracy is born out of the desire of people, particularly the middle class, to determine their own destiny, lead, and have a say into how they are governed (Grey, 2005). The only difference between bureaucracy and democracy is that the latter is driven by the desire of the masses to make their input into structures of society that control their lives whereas bureaucracy is largely designed and fashioned by a few people high in society. The conflict between the two is largely a conflict between differing goals, while organizations (Their owners or investors) what maximum returns on their investment through orderly efficient structures and authority, the people (Mostly workers) are more concerned about their welfare and self-determination. As a result democracy is associated with lack of discipline to a certain extent because it breeds an environment where everyone has a right to raise their opinions and concerns at any time thus creating confusion and inefficiency most times. With the above factors in consideration, bureaucracy and democracy have been brought together by necessity to have each of the sides have their way. It is no longer necessary to have serious conflict between the two as they can now be married together in a feasible relationship. Most organizations now maintain definite structures that allocate responsibilities, have rules and regulations and demand a certain level of discipline in a classical bureaucratic fashion. However, these organizations also have parallel systems where the members can be able to have representative bodies with elected representatives and democratic structures that champion for their needs and rights within the bureaucratic structures. In many cases there are various levels of democracy in decision-making within bureaucratic systems. For example a departmental head might call a meeting and let the members decide democratically in any issue concerning them or their work. This is a democratic system embedded within a classical bureaucracy and it enables the organization to work effectively while giving workers some voice in the operations. This hybrid between bureaucracy and democracy is used by many modern organizations (Ray, 1999). On the other hand, even in society, democracy in itself cannot function without a certain level of bureaucracy. It is evident that even the most successful democratic societies are based on bureaucratic structures and order. For examples in most democratic organizations or countries bureaucratic institutions are required to carry out democratic elections. Without bureaucratic electoral bodies this is impossible. It is also evident that once leaders have been elected democratically they require bureaucratic structures and authorities to function because it is virtually impossible to accomplish all tasks through majority acclaim. In essence most democratic authorities cannot function without bureaucratic structures and order. Conclusion The line between bureaucracy and democracy has blurred so much in recent years so that by now the two, although distinct in their ideological meaning, have become almost the same thing. The symbiotic relationship between them means that neither can really survive the current organizational or social setup without the other. The conflicting views about bureaucracy and democracy are merely ideological and stem mainly from the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate one from the other. Bibliography Edwards, R., 1979. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books. Fournier, V. and Grey, C., 1999. Too Much, Too little and Too Often: A Critique of du Gay’s Analysis of Enterprise. Organization, 6(1), p.107-128 Gay, P., 2000. In Praise of Bureaucracy. London: SAGE Publications. Gerth, H.H. and Wright, C.M, 2000. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Grey, C., 2005. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Organizations. London: SAGE Publications. Ray, L.J., 1999. Theorizing Classical Sociology. Philadelphia: Open University Press Ritzer, G., 2011. The McDonaldization of Society. London: Pine Forge Press Read More