Bureaucracy : Master or servant ?

Kenish K *

Bureaucracy is an enduring institution which has stood the test of time. When Max Weber said societies which were once governed by bureaucracy could never get rid of it, he was probably very right. Though thinkers like Karl Marx called it ‘parasites’ and saw it as an instrument of the ruling class, other like Max Weber and Hegel took it to an exalted heights.

However the entire discourse on the institution till date is around reforming it and not of replacing it. Till today, no better institution better than bureaucracy has been found for running a State. It is no exaggeration to say that it continues to occupy its ‘exalted’ status without any formidable institution to rival it.

But it is also an institution that has come under a barrage of criticism left, right and centre for its inactivity and indifference and for indulging in self aggrandisement at the cost of the masses. Below are some of the prominent contributors to the idea of bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy: Different ideologies

Amongst the earliest thinkers, Hegel invested bureaucracy with a sublime mission transcending all considerations of freedom. “He raised the concept of bureaucracy to abstracts heights, a transcendent entity, a mind above individual minds” (B.B. Mishra). Hegel considers bureaucracy plays the role of link between the civil society and the state. He further held that Bureaucracy is a ‘universal estate’ which sees to “the maintenance of the general state interest and of legality”.

However Karl Marx was not very kind to the institution of bureaucracy. He considered bureaucracy as “parasites” designed to maintain status quo and the privileges of the dominant section of the society. He felt that in the case of individual bureaucrat, the state objective turned into his private objective, into chasing after higher posts, the making of a career (Derek Sayer). Marx also attacked “the deliberate mysteriousness” maintained by bureaucracy. He held that the atmosphere of mystery was maintained as it was afraid of conducting the affairs of the state in public.

Gaetano Mosca is another thinker who contributed immensely to the idea of bureaucracy. He defined bureaucracy as a political organization with an extensive number of public services receiving their salaries from the government for the performance of their duties demanding a greater specialization of functions, a far greater discipline in all grades of political, administrative and military service. The bureaucratic organisation being essentially rule bound, the personal qualities of the supreme head of the state were not as significant as in feudal system. Under a bureaucratic organisation, society is influenced less by the given individual leader than by the ruling class as a whole.

Robert Michels also made substantial contributions to the concept of bureaucracy. He explored the concerns of bureaucracy insofar as the exercise of power is concerned. He believed that bureaucracy was the instrument through which politically dominant class exercised control over the society. However it was not a force on its own and had to be discussed in the context of political parties.

Is Bureaucracy Bad?

Consider the following news items published in some of the national and international dailies in the last few years:

* CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) awaits nod to try 47 officials ( the Economic Times dated 3rd October,2015)

* Home Secretary fired for saying No, Minister ( The Indian Express, dated 4th September,2015)

* Coal Secretary kept Manmohan in the dark( The Hindu dated 2nd October,2015)

* Suspended IAS couple make a fortune( The Hindu dated 20th January,2015)

* India’s bureaucracy a “nightmare”( Wall Street Journal, dated 12 January 2012)

Where does this leave the institution of bureaucracy? When Max Weber imagined the bureaucratic institution as an “iron caged” in which people were trapped, he probably foresaw what would become of this institution. Another prominent political thinker, Francis Fukuyama termed bureaucratic autonomy and democratic accountability as a “paradox”. Whereas democracy demands accountability of the State for its acts, an autonomous and capable bureaucracy causes the potential loss of control over it by the State.

However allowing these observations to completely overlook the positive contributions of bureaucracy would amount to grave injustice to the institution. Millennium earlier than Europe, China’s autonomous bureaucracy was putting the brakes on certain forms of arbitrary autocratic behaviour on the part of the emperors. Indeed, one Chinese emperor during the Ming dynasty thought he should be able to raise his own army and conduct a war: the bureaucracy politely but firmly disarmed him (Francis Fukuyama).

Similarly, the rapid industrial advancement made after 1871 till the First World War in Germany was attributed to the strong Prussian bureaucracy (ibid). After all, bureaucracy did its bids to restore some sanity to the world of men and make some sense of the human society!

The Paradoxical Power: The Gray eminence of the Public Administration

Nicholas Henry termed the existence of a powerful public administration in the US inspite of cultural, institutional and legal limit on executive action as a “paradox”. When PM Jawaharlal Nehru was asked what his biggest failure was as PM after 17 years in the saddle, he replied it was his inability to reform the administration...to clear the “bureaucratic jungle” (Madhav Godbole). Similarly, many American Presidents had already expressed strong dislike for bureaucracy. Then, how is it that inspite of all oppositions the institution of bureaucracy has continued to survive?

There are atleast three factors for the continuing existence of bureaucratic institutions: knowledge, staying power and absence of alternative institution. Knowledge is the base of bureaucratic power. Administration is knowledge. Knowledge is power. This knowledge comes from years of experience from working with the political executive and different elements of the society. When forces external to the executive branch do gain knowledge, they gain knowledge at their expense. That is why bureaucracy prefers to work under a cloak of secrecy (Nicholas Henry).

Another factor is the staying power of bureaucracy. In the US, out of 175 federal institutions, only 15 per cent disappeared over a half century, a death rate that was far below that of business failure during the same period, leading to the conclusion that, by and large, government organisations are “immortal”( Nicholas Henry). Unless otherwise penalised for misconduct or die while in service, a member of bureaucracy survives for a long time in his post unlike political executives who have to face elections every four/five years.

After the end of 2nd World War, when the Americans, the French and the British authorities sought to “de-Nazify” the German bureaucracy, they end up purging only 1.8% of the total 53,000 strong German civil service personnel (Francis Fukuyama). Such is the staying power of bureaucracy!

The absence of an alternative institution to bureaucracy for running the State is also a factor for the continuing relevance of the institution. Marx predicted the “withering away of bureaucracy” when the State is replaced by the rule of proletariats. However neither the State nor the bureaucracy has withered or disappeared. Even Gaetano Mosca who was an exponent of Marxist view on State agreed that even if the State was abolished and taken over by a Proletariat rule, it had to be governed by bureaucracy, far more extensive than the one under capitalist system. He even agreed that bureaucracy under socialist or one-party rule could be all the more pervasive (B.B.Mishra).

Bureaucracy: Master or Servant?

For those who believe in minimal or no state interference, “Fantasies of Statelessness” (Francis Fukuyama) has been their enduring aspiration. However the unfolding political situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and other West Asian countries have ensured that the state is not going to lose its relevancy any time soon. And the state exercises its influence through the institution of bureaucracy which brings us to the heart of the question: Is bureaucracy the master or the servant?

Insofar as the question of bureaucracy being the master or the servant is concerned, it goes without saying that as it serves the people through the political executives who are answerable to the people, it certainly is the servant of the people. However, given its immense experience and the range of skills borne out of years of learning under different political and social environs, it may not be an exaggeration to say that it has an absolute mastery over its area of expertise which certainly makes him the master of the situation!