Bureaucracy is an example of a “devil term” in today’s politics. All you have to do is mention the word, and people think of waste, excessive size, barriers to getting things done, impersonal treatment and lack of innovation.
Just imagine a candidate for the House of Representatives running on the “pro-bureaucracy” platform! Most people would think that had to be a (bad) joke.
There are good reasons for these negative associations with bureaucracy, especially as we consider times when each of us has had a frustrating experience dealing with a large organization – whether it was a government agency, a huge corporation or a large nonprofit.
Unfortunately, this way of seeing bureaucracy diverts us from the reasons for bureaucratic forms of organization in the first place.
Bureaucracies arose in the 19th century to make government fairer and more predictable, rather than having policies and their implementation carried out by the preferences and whims of often-partisan leaders who come and go.
At its core, bureaucracy is about hiring and promoting people based on publicly known and accepted qualifications rather than their personal connections; creating definite lines of authority and responsibility; establishing clear and universal standards for performance; and applying policies evenly and without favor.
These noble goals were behind the creation of the U.S. Civil Service Commission in 1883, shortly after the assassination of President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled and delusional job seeker.
The idea behind the Civil Service is that most government employees would serve without loyalty tests to public officials and would be more committed to their professions and to the work of their agencies than to any party, president or legislator.
When bureaucracy works well, it provides a safeguard against corruption while also offering career advancement opportunities for qualified people – again, without fear or favor. The Civil Service was established to eliminate the “spoils system,” which was, in today’s popular language, “pretty deep and very swampy.”
Bureaucracy is a system, with its advantages and disadvantages. It can get bloated, burdensome and alienating. Still, it is a system with a purpose, and large bureaucracies in every sector have helped to achieve lofty goals – for example, as seen in military, public health, employment, natural resource and educational programs.
What does bureaucracy, working well, mean at the local level? It means we can count on fire and law enforcement officers to be well trained and qualified; it means that city and county governments will be subject to the highest accounting practices; it means that all kinds of resources will be managed and accessed in ways that are based on established principles; it means that independent, nonpartisan assessments of government functions will be regularly used.
These are just a few of the good things that bureaucracy brings us.
Contrary to the totally negative way bureaucracy is talked about today, we need it. We may wish for bureaucracy to go away, but then we’d better consider the alternative: unqualified people holding many important positions; decision-making based on momentary individual desires; and the uneven implementation of policies. And all this chaos with no recourse for appeal!
In today’s discussions about the future of government, whether in Washington, D.C., or at state and local levels, we really need to get beyond slogans like the “deep state” and seeing bureaucrats as enemies and consider concrete and well thought out ways to make government more effective and efficient. There’s always room for improvement: finding better ways to solve problems and to serve people. Railing against bureaucracy as if it were some kind of shadowy figure that has nothing to do with us and our needs doesn’t help us as a society.
We may not love bureaucracy, but we’d sure miss it if it were gone.
George Cheney is a retired professor of communication from the University of Colorado and an independent consultant living in Cortez.
