The picture, above, comes from an online article, dated in 2012, which carried the following, provoking title: "
Hang The Last Bureaucrat?" The author, whose name is undisclosed, is writing from a "far-left" perspective. The website from which I retrieved the article (and the picture) is identified as follows: "
M-L-M MAYHEM! - Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Reflections." The title of the article is explained as follows:
Perhaps the most famous piece of graffiti from the May 1968 uprising in Paris was the aphorism "humanity won't be happy until the last capitalist is hung with the guts of the last bureaucrat." Here was the statement that equated capitalism with bureaucracy, a slogan for the angry rebels building barricades in the streets that felt almost as vital as the most important May 1968 slogan, "demand the impossible." And all of us who have been inspired, most probably in our student youth, by May 1968 are usually aware of this violent demand to strangle capitalists with the viscera of bureaucrats.
Even the unnamed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist writer responsible for the article I am referencing notes that bureaucrats may actually be needed - hence the question mark appended to the end of the title. Hang the bureaucrats? Maybe not!
A second article about bureaucracy - not from a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist perspective - also employed a question mark at the end of the title: "
What's A Bureaucrat To Do?" That second article was originally written in 2016, by Stephen G. Harding, an adjunct professor in the master of public policy and administration program at Northwestern University. I have reprinted Harding's article in full at the end of this blog posting.
Given what the president and his henchmen are doing, waging war on the so-called "Deep State," attacks on "bureaucrats" are back in season - and from all sides. It turns out that the author of the second article, professsor Harding, pretty much shares the perspective of the unnamed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist author of the first article. From whatever direction we approach "bureaucracy," we end up with the same mixed feelings. We may not like those bureaucrats very much, and what they're doing, but maybe we do need them, after all. Given what is going on in government today,
Harding recently recirculated his article, which is how I came across it. Harding felt, clearly, that it was time to raise his question again: "What's a bureaucrat to do?"
Let's think about that!
If we do think about that question, as posed by the professor, it seems to me that any honest contemplation leads us back to the real question. It's not what the "bureaucrats" should do (they already have their directions), it's what we should do. We need to title our inquiry this way: "Bureaucracy, What Should We Do?"
Self-government requires "we, the people," to be in charge of the government. If we are going to govern by employing people to carry out work on our behalf (those "bureaucrats") then we need to know what's happening, and stay on top of those people who do wield such immense power over the programs that they undertake on our behalf, and at our direction.
We could set up a system that would much more directly involve members of the public in the operation of the "bureaucracy" that is supposed to be carrying out our own aims and ambitions. Fact is, mostly, we don't have a clue.
I haven't forgotten
that Michael Jackson song I have
mentioned in this blog before, and I haven't forgotten the impression that it made on me. Strictly speaking, Jackson's song is not about "bureaucracy." However, it
is about our failure to achieve the kind of society we want, and to assign blame for that failure. When we don't like what's going on - if we actually honor the idea that we are a "self-governing" people - we need to take a look in that Michael Jackson mirror.
If our bureaucrats are failing us, we don't "hang" them. And we don't ask them, the "bureaucrats," to solve the problems that we have created by our own lack of governmental direction and supervision.
Here is what we do. We get engaged, and give our governmental employees (those "bureaucrats") directions that will satisfy us. "We, the people," the people who are paying the bills and who are having to follow the rules that the "bureaucrats" are employing to achieve the goals that we have told them we want to achieve, need actually to be in charge of those "bureaucrats." What the Musk-Trump efforts are doing is, most emphatically, NOT putting the people in charge of the government. What those billionaire buddies are doing is stripping away our efforts at self-government, and arrogating all our power to themselves.
More public involvement, not denunciations of the so-called "bureaucrats," and not a sense of despondent defeatism, is what is required.
And that is not impossible, either!
oooOOOooo
What’s a Bureaucrat To Do?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Stephen G. Harding
December 6, 2016
It’s no surprise that the governed seem none too happy with their government. Of course, this attitude is not new given an American brand of democratic angst has historically been woven into our collective DNA. Yet this contemporary rancor runs uncomfortably high. The corners of society are making it abundantly clear of their fragmented, yet almost universal, unhappiness with something more than national politics.
Populism notwithstanding, it can be argued that another causation of the national dissatisfaction points to the country’s discord with governmental bureaucracy itself. There exists a perception that an untouchable, uncaring, unresponsive, power centered system of government is partially culpable for this very visible anger. Not that the nonelected face of government has not been called out before, it is still disconcerting when elected officials, such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan state:
“We’re restoring accountability to the federal government. When we say ‘drain the swamp’ that means stop giving all this power to unelected people to micromanage our society, our economy and our lives.”
It would be naïve for state and local officials to think this attitude ends at the federal level. With a focus on data driven managerial efficiencies and performance-based measurement, governmental agencies are still pressed to meet the oftentimes conflicting expectations of elected officials, let alone the competing interests of a socio-economic diverse and stratified society. This suggests that bureaucracy’s focus on perfecting the rules and methodologies of governance does not address or satisfy the democratic needs of the people.
Images of Concern?
Maybe a line from the film “Gladiator” will help the analysis. In his role as Senator Gaius Tiberius Gracchus, Derek Jacobi states:
“I don’t pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people.”
This quote, even with its seemingly good intentions, implies a sense of superiority and an acknowledged separation between government and the governed. There are numerous thoughts and inferences that can be made from this statement. Here are just a few:
(A) With some clear exceptions, rule-driven governmental bureaucracies tend to display a somewhat superficial interest in the individual and common needs and motivations of their constituents.
(B) Outside the confines of its own organizational interests, government has a tendency to lack an intrinsic understanding of: (1) the public’s need to maximize individualism and self-governance; (2) the need to minimize external control; (3) the importance of society’s egalitarian notion of fairness that transcends programmatic efficiency, fiscal responsibility, and even adherence to the law; and (3) society’s need to itself induce public discourse.
(C) With the government/governed divide comes the notion of elitism. In his 1979 text, “The Culture of Narcissism-American Life in An Age of Diminishing Expectations,” Christopher Lasch declared the managerial and professional elite as a paternalistic ruling class. This is partially evidenced when community dialog is replaced by government’s tendency to conduct, usually unintentionally, patronizing monologs. In some ways, this alludes to the blind side of meritocracy. Unlike the authority granted to elected officials, career bureaucrats, regardless of position, educational attainment, managerial proficiency or financial acumen, do not enjoy the legitimacy of a popular mandate validated by the voting process.
What to Do—Earning the Equivalent of a Popular Mandate
Bureaucracy needs to take responsibility in reducing the level of societal consternation. This starts by balancing the needs of the community with the needs of the organization, and with the personal needs and career aspirations of individual professionals. Well-intentioned and technically competent bureaucrats need to publicly demonstrate dedication to public service and not just to their corporate structures or the mandates of their professional associations. Many certainly do, yet organizational demands and a narrow focus in the pursuit of technical and managerial skills may not be enough. A broader focus requires an expanded definition of what constitutes merit. Patricia Ingraham may have said it best in her text, Foundation of Merit: Public Service in American Democracy:
“Merit is having not only the necessary skills and competencies to fill the job in question but also a public service character—a desire to act, not for individual self-interest but for a broader good. Merit is related to values, ideals and ethics, to the appropriate role of the civil service in democracy, and thus to governance in a democratic society.”
James L. Perry underscores this concept in his essay, Federalist No. 72: What Happened to the Public Service Ideal? As a portion of his suggested appendix to Alexander Hamilton’s paper, he states:
“Attending to the competence of civil servants without attending to their relatedness to the executive and the citizenry is a formula for incomplete and inadequate behavior, behavior that citizens will come to view as bad behavior. Civil servants must be selected and nurtured not only for their competence but for their public service. Developing public service as the core value is the bulwark of a system of administration that will motivate civil servants to do the right thing.”
Subscription to these ideals just might prove to be an effective way in garnering the equivalency of a popular mandate.
Author: Stephen G. Harding is an adjunct professor in the master of public policy and administration program at Northwestern University. Previously he served in various senior management capacities in the California cities of San Diego, Pasadena and Santa Ana. His private sector experience includes vice presidencies in the real estate development and municipal consulting industries. Email: Stephen.harding@northwestern.edu.
Image Credit:
