Why Is Bureaucracys Relationship to Democracy So Conflicted - Literature review Example

Why is bureaucracy’s relationship to democracy so conflicted? The tension between bureaucracy and democracy emanates from the fact that, both autocracy, which entails a high level of dictatorship, and democracy must use bureaucracy to implement their policies. Whether in democracy or authoritarian systems, the bureaucratic agents are the implementers of the policies devised by the highest authority, who are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that the policies formulated at the top level trickles down to the grassroots (Kulwaum, 2007: n.p.). The greatest tension between bureaucracy and democracy emanates from the fact that bureaucracy hinders the achievement of democracy, under circumstances where it is excessively applied (Blau, 1970:142). In this respect, bureaucracy makes it difficult for the democratic governance to succeed, considering that it makes it more and more difficult for the people to access the social and political institutions which are established to serve them (Ray, 1999:177). Where a system applies excessive bureaucracy, a citizen is likely to take longer and employ more resources in order to access the services of the social or political institutions that have been established to serve the citizenry. This is because, the existence of many bureaucratic agents between the citizen and the social or political institutions means that the individuals will consume time going through each of the bureaucratic agent before they finally reach the institutions in which the citizens seeks services (Fournier & Grey, 1996:123). This way, the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy can be perceived as the one where bureaucracy stifles democracy, thus making it difficult to operate. However, bureaucracy has been defined as a tool for realizing democracy, because it is perceived as a neutral instrument that enables people to achieve routine functions without the influence of external forces that may cause instability (Madsen, 1999:n.p.). It enhances democracy through acting as the means through which the political and social policies in the society are mediated and realized. This is because, bureaucracy is structured in a way that allows the fair and balanced response to social values, which are implicit, thus avoiding the conflict involved in the operation of freewill, which is associated with breeding chaos, on the event that people operates against the set standards. Thus, bureaucracy defines how problems should be conceptualized and solved in a manner less likely to cause any conflict, meaning that it is one of the major instruments through which democracy can be realized and actualized (DuGay, 2000:262). In this respect, bureaucracy is a tool that enhances stability in the society, through defining the nature of social and political relationships that prevail within the society. It establishes a system of doing certain things in a certain way, making it possible for the political authority to rule within the established precepts of the law, as opposed to ruling in an arbitrary manner, which would therefore jeopardize the rights and freedoms of the people (Madsen, 1999:n.p.). Therefore, bureaucracy promotes democracy, through ensuring that the rights, freedoms and established social and political values are upheld all. A counter argument to this proposition is that bureaucracy has resulted to the unresponsiveness of the higher authority to the needs of the people (Kulwaum, 2007: n.p.). This is because, through bureaucracy, it is very difficult for the policies formulated at the top of the hierarchy to reach the grassroots without being modified, distorted or delayed. Once the policies formulated by the highest authority are released, they have to pass through the hierarchy of the bureaucratic agents so they can be acted upon at every stage of the way, until they reach and impact on the citizenry at the grassroots. This whole process means that a policy that was formulated to address an urgent need of the grassroots will be delayed, and there are chances that it will also be altered to suit the interest of the bureaucratic agents who serves as the middlemen between the policy formulators and the policy recipients. In the process, those who are supposed to formulate and enact policies on behalf of the people are found to be unresponsive to the needs of the people, due to the delays or the distortions that occurs in the intermediate process between the formulation and the reception of the policy (Edwards, 1979:153).This way, bureaucracy makes democracy less effective, since democracy entails the responsiveness of the authorities to the needs of the people, in a manner that will favorably address such needs, as opposed to the authorities working for their own interests (Giddens, 1971:177). Bureaucracy and democracy are also conflicted by the fact that bureaucracy has resulted to the loss of a sense of community and social relationships, though establishing complex, rigid and formal relationships, which then makes democracy inoperable (Madsen, 1999:n.p.). Democracy is characterized by the freedoms of free association and free assembly of the people, in a more informal and unstructured manner, where the people are free to express their views and opinions regarding any issue of societal interest, without feeling hindered. However, this is not the case with a bureaucratic society, which installs formal, rigid and structured channels of communication, which effectively hinders free socialization of the people, especially under circumstances where there are people in higher positions of authority as established by the system of division of labor (Gerth & Mills, 1948:197). The concept of division of labor means that the individuals with a high level of expertise occupies the highest positions within the labor markets, while those with less education, qualifications, expertise and experiences are relegated to the bottom level of the labor pyramid. In-between the two levels, bureaucratic procedures are established, which ensures a minimal interaction between the two levels, with most of the communication between them being through intermediaries (Madsen, 1999:n.p.). The consequence is that the human relationship is functionally defined by self-interest as opposed to the sense of belonging to a community (Ritzer, 2000:27). This is because, the speed with which a policy should trickle down from the highest authority to the grassroots should be fast, under circumstances where there is no self-interest, since there would be no delays and distortions that create the unresponsiveness of the high authority. The other tension between bureaucracy and democracy stems from the fact that bureaucracy is less responsive to morality, which is the highly espoused value for democracy (DuGay, 2000:259). Democracy holds morality as an essential principle that defines the relationship between people, considering that the principle of morality advocates for the interaction amongst people based on the concept of mutual interest. The principle of morality holds established social values as universal and irrefutable, so that they should apply to all individuals irrespective of their position in the society or their social status. Similarly, the concept of democracy holds that equality for all is the cardinal principal that guides and define the relationship between people (Kulwaum, 2007: n.p.). Nevertheless, in total contrast, the bureaucratic rationality is a concept that upholds values as personal and subjective, and thus holds that values cannot be assessed and neither can they be debated, denied or refuted. In this respect, the concept of bureaucratic rationality seeks to separate the interactions and relationships within the society on the basis of facts and values, such that facts are upheld as the cardinal principles guiding and defining relationships, while values are denied. Therefore, by denying the essence of morality as the basis of social relationships, bureaucracy seeks to establish matters of social relationships, communications and interactions as technical and structured (Madsen, 1999:n.p.). The consequence is that bureaucracy does not give democracy sufficient room to exercise its cardinal principle of equality for all, since it establishes technicalities that eventually hinders any efficient communication and interaction between different social classes. This way, bureaucracy serves to contrast the very fundamental principle of freedom of interaction, by replacing it with structured and technical interaction that no longer defines people as a community, but rather in terms of their self-interests. Finally, bureaucracy conflicts with the principle of democracy through applying manipulation as inevitable, where the social systems are manipulated to reflect a different set of task accomplishment modalities, where the tasks can only be accomplished effectively and efficiently through the manipulation of people’s behavior (Edwards, 1979:147). Manipulation of the people occurs in the form of making the people adhere to the established system of operations within the economic, social and political institutions in the society, as opposed to allowing the people to exercise their free will to effectively accomplish whatever tasks they may be assigned to undertake. In this manner, bureaucracy acts as a barrier to democratic reforms, since it does not allow for divergent mode of doing things, other than for the only manner and mode of operation that is defined by the systems of operations (Kulwaum, 2007: n.p.). Considering that democracy entails the exercise of freewill and the freedom of thought that is unrestricted, bureaucracy stifles democracy through applying bureaucratic rationality as the major concept defining how the society operates, while relegating the concept of freedom of thought and freewill inoperable (Blau, 1970:146). This occurs through the application of rules and procedures that are not changeable, geared towards realizing the set objectives of a few. Bureaucracy is therefore applied as a means of enabling the influential people in the society to have their way through ensuring that the rest of the society does not apply divergent means, other than the ones defined by the established rules and procedures (Madsen, 1999:n.p.). References Blau, P. (1970) Bureaucracy in Dennis Wrong (ed) Max Weber, pp141-6. DuGay, P. (2000) “Meaning of Discipline”, In Praise of Bureaucracy. London: Sage. pp253-66 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. Gerth, H. H. & Mills, W. C. (1948) From Max Weber Ch.8 Bureaucracy, pp 196-245 and Ch.10 The Giddens, A. (1971) Capitalism and Modern Social Theor,y pp124-184 Kulwaum, G. (2007). “Chapter 5 - problems of reform and the culture of bureaucracy” In Problems of Devolution of PNG Education. Retrieved March 20, 2014 from http://www.pngbuai.com/300socialsciences/education/policy/development/kul-devolution-chap5.html Madsen, A. (1999). A survey of tensions between: The U.S. Bureaucracy and American Democracy. Transnational Research Associate. Retrieved March 20, 2014 from http://www.transnational-research.com/democ.htm Ray, R. (1999) Theorising Classical Sociology p173-188 Ritzer, G. (2000) The McDonaldization of Society chs. 1 & 2. Read More