Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem and David Graeber in The Utopia of Rules reflect on bureaucracy and its discontents. Considering their reflections, do you think bureaucracy fuels feelings of alienation and is a main obstacle to sustainable democracy? Or, do you think that bureaucracy allows us to orderly influence the processes of representative government and institutionally fortifies our democratic ideals?
In your essay consider the following: What role does the “banality of evil” play in your analysis? How does moral accountability inform democracy and does democracy necessitate the kind of local immediacy made impossible by large scale bureaucratic systems common to Western liberal democracies?
Sources:
“Eichmann in Jerusalem Hannah Arendt”
“The Utopia of Rules David Graeber”
Solution
INTRODUCTION
To reflect upon the role and impact of bureaucracy in western liberal democracy, it is imperative to understand these concepts and systems in detail; as without appreciating structure, nature, and objectives, of democracy/bureaucracy, it would be difficult to discern how contemporary bureaucracy affects democracy.
Democracy is understood as the Rule of the People; however, its academic understanding is slightly more complex/sophisticated and comprehensive. As per the prevalent academic understanding, democracy is a political system, in which outcome of conflicts is determined by some factors or participants. In simple terms, the majority of population elects representatives, which form a government to implement a social-political-economic agenda in a given timeframe.
As there are some factors or participants in democracy; therefore, the outcomes, which are produced through a process are hard to predict. It implies that results produced by democracy are unique and it is hard to replicate them in other democratic systems that are influenced by their own indigenous and exogenous factors.
The origin of western liberal democracy can be traced to City-States of Athens, which elected the ruler. However, the system was not based on universal suffrage. Historians/Academics are of the view that modern democracy is a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution of the 17th century. The changes in economic realm gave birth to new political-economic and social, economic ideas, such as capitalism, which eventually translated into a democratic system (Arendt 185).
It is apparent that Western democracy is based on notions and principles of capitalism, which suggest that the size of government must be small, and individuals/firms must have maximum rights and freedom. It is because freedom allows individuals and firms to exploit their potential fully, which aids the evolution of the entire system. Also, in democratic systems, it is simpler to discern and implement the will of the majority. Legislations reflect the will of the majority, whereas the institutions implement this will. Therefore, in democracies, institutions have a key role to play, and because of their enormous role, they are controversial (Graeber 36).
ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN DEMOCRACY
In a classical democracy, will of the majority, rules, and regulations are implemented through institutions. Therefore, institutions play a major role in any democracy. For instance, the law of the land is implemented through police and the judiciary. Police Department ensures that violators of the law are apprehended and tried in a court of law, whereas the judiciary examines whether the law was violated and if it were, what should be its punishment (as per the law/constitution). In addition to the examination of legal cases, Apex court also interprets the law/constitution and protect the rights (guaranteed by the constitution), which aids us in understanding role of Institutions in a classic western democracy.
Similarly, institutions implement policies about the economy and services. For instance, various state institutions aid a state in implementing healthcare policy.
Economic objectives, on the other hand, are realized through semi-autonomous state institution such as the Central Bank, which uses various means to realize these objectives. These institutions use bureaucracy as an instrument to realize objectives and implement policies. For instance, the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve decides the economic policy on the data that is gathered by the bureaucracy of the Federal Reserve (employed in various departments). Therefore, we can say that bureaucracy influences not only the policy implementation (the nature and pace of implementation) but also policy making, which is why bureaucracy has remained a controversial subject in western democracies (Graeber 40).
BUREAUCRACY
We have already established that role of bureaucracy is large in western democracies because of western democracies function through institutions. From the evidence, gathered from the selected literature, we learn that in the previous century, bureaucracy was a very hot and a controversial subject. As the role of bureaucracy and bureaucrats were growing, many studies attempted to understand the nature and capacity of contemporary bureaucracy. Some of the studies attempted to regularize it. Most of the studies concluded that bureaucracy is essential and; therefore, it must be tamed and must be made more efficient (Graeber 5).
Over the years, the role of bureaucracy has not only augmented but also it has become systematic. The process of formulation of policy and its implementation has become so methodical and common that bureaucracy seems invisible.
Historically, bureaucracy is also understood as a segment of government or administration, which is constituted by non-elected officials. After Second World War, the dependency on bureaucracy increased evidently, which affected both policymaking and policy implementation in Western democracies? It resulted in organic opposition towards new phenomenon, which undermined western liberal democracy; wills of the majority must translate into policies and laws.
The contemporary bureaucracy and bureaucratic system, which is based on the Notions of Max Weber, has been evolving at a great pace; however, its expansion and growth is not a serious and sensitive subject as it was once. Nevertheless, a particular kind of perception exists about bureaucracy, which is shaped by evidence regarding it, despite the fact people have become accustomed to bureaucracy; the water in which we swim (Graeber 4). Life is possible under every law (Arendt 4).
PERCEPTION AND EVIDENCE ABOUT BUREAUCRACY
According to the statistics/evidence about bureaucracy, there is a substantial decline in the use of term bureaucracy in the literature, despite the fact that more time is consumed to fulfill bureaucratic obligations. It suggests that we have accepted structure and role of modern bureaucracy and it is affecting its evolution.
In spite of the accepting it as a necessary evil, a strong perception exists about bureaucracy. The majority is of the view that bureaucracy has adversely affected democracy. As we have established that democracy ensures that will of the majority is expressed to the most extent; therefore, any system which undermines democracy or subverts the will of the majority becomes a controversial system (Graeber 82).
The evidence suggests that various Civil Rights and Human Rights movements, which occurred organically, were also movements against the bureaucratic setup. In fact, literature about these movements suggests that these movements strongly criticized the bureaucratic setup, as it had affected policies and rights. Sixties civil rights movements considered bureaucracy or bureaucratic mindset detrimental as it seeks soul-destroying conformity. The abhorrence, about bureaucracy and its modus operandi, was so extreme that people started to question the existence of rules and regulations.
We also learn that left has most strong views about bureaucracy and left of the center politicians and intellectuals suggest that government functions should be privatized to reduce the role of bureaucracy, which is adversely affecting democracy (Graeber 9).
Another perception, regarding the bureaucracy, is that it has yielded a mindset and a process, which not only adversely affects democracy and its spirit of democracy, but also yields a class, which is quite similar to the feudal class of pre-industrial Europe (Graeber 8). From the methodical study of history, we learn that feudal class was strong (but subtle) opposed by the middle-class of that time. The middle-class of the industrial world opposes the contemporary bureaucratic system and class; however, this resistance is fading. There are various reasons for acknowledging bureaucracy as a necessary evil. One of the reasons is that the bureaucracy has become an instrument to form and implement policies. Also, as the size of government has increased, since World War II, so does the size of the bureaucracy.
Left is the biggest advocate of large size government, which requires a hefty bureaucratic setup, which is why bureaucracy is no more a prime subject of Left’s literature. Furthermore, liberalism asserts that any introduction of reforms and regulations to reduce the role of bureaucracy would complicate affairs further.
HOW BUREAUCRACY AFFECTS DEMOCRACY?
Democracy is preferred because of its simple structure and effective methods to address challenges and to produce opportunities. However, if a democratic system is no more able to produce results quickly and continually failing to address the challenges, then that the democratic system is not effective, and its relevance would reduce.
There is enormous evidence about the complications yielded by bureaucratic setup. The paperwork puts an additional burden on individuals and firms, monetary and psychological, which affect both economy and society. For instance, students, who are unaware of the process and paperwork, suffer the most and because of mismanagement and their income are badly affected.
Similarly, when a new process is introduced, by bureaucracy through a process, it puts additional pressure on pharmaceutical companies, which reflect in prices. There are numerous examples of bureaucratic complications. For instance, the Board of Governors, of Federal Reserve, depends entirely on bureaucracy to devise policies; therefore, we see that monetary policy seems little detached and it seems to address economic issues of a particular class.
It is very apparent that bureaucratic system has reduced the efficiency of democracy. Paperwork is not only time consuming, but also it yields various kinds of social and economic complications. Also, it produces a class, which is entirely career-oriented and seems alienated from phenomena such as sympathy and morality. The core objective, of this class, remains progress and for those bureaucrats are willing to pay the cost.
This cost influences both democracy and perception regarding democracy, which makes a democratic system less sustainable. In fact, as the role of bureaucracy has augmented over the years, liberal democracies have become more unsustainable. Also, it aided the rise ultra-conservative views regarding political-economic phenomena and system, demanding small size of government and no regulation of markets and the economy. These views are influencing liberal economic models, where governments/administrations are reconsidering health care and abstaining from regulating the market/economy; despite the fact that the capitalist system is inherently unstable (Graeber 213).
BANALITY OF EVIL
Though it is true the bureaucracy is an entity, which works in a particular manner and exerts its influence upon the political-economic system; however, it is a fact that the bureaucracy is a tool to devise and implement policies and bureaucratic class is a subservient class (serves those, who are in power). The bureaucratic class is almost programmed to follow orders, and their conformity is soul-destroying. Hannah Arendt has discussed this phenomenon in great detail with examples from Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
For this phenomenon, she has coined the term banality of evil. She asserts in many cases, bureaucrats ignore their conscience and follow/implement order/policy to the letter, without considering how the implementation of an order or policy will affect individuals and society. She asserts that most Nazi officers were not evil, and they were only implementing state policy without considering its consequences (Arendt 27).
In extreme conditions, such examples are common; however, in normal circumstances, such examples are rare. Nevertheless, this phenomenon exists in one form or another, in contemporary liberal democracies. For instance, the PRISM project, of National Security Agency NSA), violated many constitutional clauses; however, despite that bureaucracy at NSA implemented or executed the program (Arendt 142).
IDEAL ROLE IN LIBERAL POLITICAL-ECONOMIC MODELS
Most of the critics, of contemporary bureaucracy, assert that bureaucracy serves only power lobby. It is a machine without conscience, which works to produce results of a particular class. Also, the bureaucratic class has become like the feudal class of medieval Europe, which is quite dismissive of other classes and oppressive.
The modus operandi of contemporary bureaucracy is becoming universal and bureaucratic class is becoming a predatory class. Its effectiveness has reduced and the dependency of governments/administrations, have increased. Also, it undermines democracy because bureaucracy, it constitutes a deep state, which has grown stronger than governments and, in some cases, even than the states.
It is accepted, widely, that democracy must function through its institutions and institutions require a bureaucracy to implement agenda or policy. In recent years, bureaucracy is actively participating in the policy-making process, which was not the case, as the traditional role of bureaucracy was to implement the agenda.
I believe that the footprint, of bureaucracy, must reduce on policy-making process, which will reduce the influence and it will reduce complications that yield because of the influence bureaucracy exerts. However, we will have to admit that to only some extent the size and influence of bureaucracy can be reduced. Also, the process of reducing and size would be extremely cumbersome, and it would complicate matters further.
The only possible method, of making the bureaucracy more effective and less problematic, is a reduction in the size of government. The rule is larger the size of government, larger the bureaucracy. Till then, the state should use its resources to give a conscience to this huge machine, which directly affects political, economic, and social systems.
CONCLUSION
In the end, it is evident from the study that bureaucracy alienates and makes democracy less effective. In fact, as the size of the bureaucracy and its footprint of policymaking grow, contradictions of democracy become more apparent, and they deepen. Democracy is based on the notions and principles of capitalism; therefore, it is inherently contradictory, which implies that an additional effort is always required to keep it stable and effective.
Work Cited
Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press Inc., 1964.
Graeber, David. The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. London: Melville House, 2015.
+447462439809