“Patriotism in the sense of democracy allows for dissent from popular view – including questioning the morality of war.” – Robert E. Hagan
This quote by is as poignant and significant to the political climate today as it was during the Vietnam Era. Unfortunately, the United States has failed to learn both from Mr. Hagan’s wisdom and from the lessons taught during the 1960’s. Enmeshed in a war against terrorism and terrorists with no single nation of origin, no delineated leadership structure and no understood or know presence with whom to negotiate, the United States should be familiar with this situation. The state of international affairs in the United States parallels its situation in the 1960’s. The significant difference is that after September 11, 2001, Americans have reverted to an idealized and false traditional memory of government and national leadership as omnipotent and infallible. In the 1960’s, protests, civil unrest, and change were encouraged if not forced by many citizens. This vocal group fought for their beliefs and their desire to remove troops from Vietnam. Today in a post 9-11 society, government is not questioned, allowing legislation such as the Patriot Act to pass. The desire to seem or appear patriotic is more valuable to Americans today than preserving their civil liberties or fighting for what is “right”. Leaders are thought to be tough, benevolent, and fair yet when public administrators and elected officials fail to answer to the public’s demands there is no public action to check this behavior. There is no social action taken by the people that rivals the 1960’s, though circumstances are strikingly similar, the fight is not there. Though it seems that Americans question the morality of the war as Hagen recommends, their willingness to fight for what they believe in is lacking.
To be truly patriotic, one must acknowledge the necessity of dissent. Should leadership fail to obey or implement the desires of the people, it is our right and responsibility as citizens to act and speak out against that which we do not agree with or believe in government. Utilizing personal moral and ethical standards, public administrators are not only responsible to themselves but also to those they serve. Fredrick Mosher, an acclaimed public administration scholar, referred to public administration as, “thrice removed from direct democracy.” Being distantly accountable to the public, individuals that chose careers in public service must be able to hold themselves accountable for upholding the public good. It is necessary to recognize that with this sense of duty comes a responsibility to question government and strive in all cases to do what is “right” and just. As voters it is our duty to hold government accountable for its actions. Not only elected officials, but all government employees are stewards of public trust. Therefore, it becomes the duty of all public officials to not only give their best work to their job but also to reflect and act with good conscience when performing their duties.
Today it is popular to support troops. War and its uncertain objectives are not supported by the American public, yet there is no strong retaliation against government demanding a resolution. Patriotism has become silent acquiescence, which is society’s first and greatest battle, the fight against indifference. To stand up for what we believe in, even when it is not “politically correct” or popular, is the greatest right and privilege American’s should hold dear. This fight is the manifestation of democracy in its truest form, as the forefathers envisioned it, and exactly what Hagan refers to in his statement.
Public Administration vs. Political Process October 23, 2008
Tags: Government, Public Administration Theory
The role of public administrators in the political process has been described as “thrice removed from direct democracy” by Frederick Mosher, a leading public administration scholar. The role of public administrators as non-elected, non-appointed officials provides them with a unique position in the political process. Public administrators strive to meet the needs of elected officials, political appointees, and the public by successfully managing public agencies. In this role, public administrators also obtain a reasonable amount of power. The mechanisms devised to control this power are divided among the various branches of government. Though important to guide and supervise the work of public administrators, it is important to remember that too much regulation inhibits the bureaucracy’s ability to complete their work in the most effective manner.
Public administration has been referred to as the, “fourth” branch of government. As managers of public agencies, public administrators are responsible for facilitating and applying laws passed by the legislature. Government rules and regulations demand the existence of public administrators to manage government. There exists a need to ensure that public administrators act in the public interest, as they posses significant influence. In recent political history, due in part to the increase in political regulation, public administrators have gained more authority than they traditionally have had in the past.
Bureaucratic power comes from varying internal and external factors.
“The internal sources of power are three: (1) knowledge – the information and expertise possessed by the agency; (2) cohesion – the commitment of the bureau’s personnel to the organization and its goals; and (3) leadership – The effectiveness of the agency chief in managing the agency.”[1]
Public administrators posses the specialized knowledge necessary to help politicians make decisions. As professional bureaucrats, public administrators are recognized as an invaluable resource of knowledge and agency history. “Complex policy problems can be solved only with technical expertise, giving an advantage to bureaus that possess technical knowledge.”[2] Public administrators draw their power from this knowledge base. Due to the nature of their positions, many public administrators have longstanding tenure that political appointees or elected officials do not share, this time in office generates a greater appreciation and understanding for how things work within an agency and in relation to the rest of government. “Day-to-day bureau operations provide administrators with insight into policy problems that cannot be gained from a casual inspection of program budgets once a year.”[3] Understanding how things work gives public administrators a competitive edge over elected and appointed officials. Therefore, methods of finding public administrators accountable have been implemented to audit and supervise their actions.
External power can stem from political support. Political endorsement depends on how visible an agency is to the general public, what an agency’s popular image is, and what public opinion of the agency is currently. Meeting the needs of the public, the agency’s clientele, also determines the amount of power that exists within the bureaucracy. The more cohesion exists between the agency and their clientele, the more powerful the agency becomes. Ideal clientele should be widely disbursed and politically powerful. “The nature of politics in the United States blurs the distinction between political and administrative functions.”[4] If the agency has the support of key political elites, its ability to meet its own needs and the needs of its clientele is heightened as is the agency’s power. “Given the transitory nature of public opinion, a bureau is well advised to seek more reliable support to ensure its continued survival,”[5] without political support it is better for the agency to fade into the background than to appear negatively in the public eye. Public administrators posses and maintain this power on varying levels.
There are various control mechanisms in place to direct the power of public administrators. The Legislature exerts control over public administrators through the use of legislation, budgets, legislative veto and consultation, oversight, casework and informal contacts. “The veto is of crucial concern to Congress because it is a weapon not only for controlling the bureaucracy but also for checking the president.”[6] The Judiciary branch of government demonstrates their command by declaring particular administrative actions void. This is done when public administrators act outside of proper procedures or the judicial branch feels public administrators have acted inconsistently with the intent of legislation regulating their procedures. The executive branch of government utilizes their ability to make appointments, reorganize and exert staff control to manage the powers of public administrators. The executive branch also has the ability to exercise budget powers and leadership to guide the direction of administrative action. Citizens can also control public administrators by enlisting an ombudsman to speak on their behalf or by taking their concerns to local political leadership.
Though the three branches of government and citizens have various methods to control the actions of public administrators, much of their guidance depends on the ability to enforce these rules. “Congress and the president set priorities, and bureaucrats consider them but are granted sufficient discretion to make effective policy.”[7] Public administrators have the ability to decide which rules to implement and to determine to what extent they will apply those rules in their agency. Public administrators also have the ability to run parallel programs to counteract the agenda initiated by government. They have various opportunities to provide alternative sources of values and can directly challenge federal programs. These freedoms are necessary to ensure that government is run efficiently to effectively meet the needs of the people.
Public administrators exist to guarantee that the daily business of government is completed efficiently in an organized manner by the most qualified personnel, “No other institution can rival bureaucracy in its ability to perform the tasks of positive government.”[8] Working in this manner, public administrators have one goal, the successful operation of government to meet the needs of the citizens through their agency and field of expertise. “Congress may, to some extent, have allowed the bureaucracy to make law, it may also have devised a reasonably effective and noncostly way to articulate and promulgate its own legislative goals – a way that depends on the fire-alarm oversight system.”[9] Overwhelmingly, the role of public administrators is to provide service to the public. This role predominantly attracts individuals interested in giving back to their community and their country. Career bureaucrats are motivated by the cohesion of public service and typically inspired by similar goals. By instituting methods of review and oversight that allow public administrators to complete their work with the least interference possible, government enhances the performance of its agencies as a whole.
[1] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[2] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[3] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[4] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[5] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[6] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Controlling the Bureaucracy: External Checks by Political Institutions.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 135-178).
[7] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[8] Meier, Kenneth J. and John Bohte. (2007). “Bureaucratic Power and its Causes.” Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of Government, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. (p. 42-74).
[9] McCubbins, Matthew D. and Thomas Schwartz. (1984). “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28(1): 165-179.