Dr. Omar Javaid
Francis Fukuyama suggests that state bureaucracies emerged to cope the threat faced by empires from external invaders. After agricultural revolution, when human society produced surplus for the first time, threats of invasion from outsiders became a problem, and as an antidote an army had to be maintained to thwart the invaders. During earlier days, every member of a tribe was trained to fight, but when tribes grew in size and turned into empires, professional armies were created to readily fight back the invaders or initiate an advance into enemy territory. That was a pre-requisite for survival of an empire, particularly when the empire was in competition with another empire of comparable size. To finance the army, a system of taxation was typically employed. The public was convinced to pay a tax in exchange of the security from foreign invaders. To manage the tax collection and utilize it to maintain an army, a bureaucratic system was created, which would manage resources without nepotism and whose managers would serve the empire above any personal agenda. Thwarting nepotism was in fact core principle behind erecting bureaucracies. At first bureaucracies managed the resources necessary to maintain an army, and later law enforcement. Today the system is employed by every state to maintain an entire array of public institutions including system of education, health care, railway, airports, law enforcement, garbage collection, supply of utilities, maintenance of city infrastructure etc.
The system, nevertheless, was not infallible. Bureaucracies often ended up serving their own interest instead of the interest of the state or the empire they were meant to serve. When society become complex, bureaucrats become the eyes, ears and arms of ruling elite, and in absence of any alternative mechanism to verify their verdict, the ruling elite often ended up becoming a hostage of the bureaucratic machinery. The power, instead of flowing downwards, flew upwards. To solve the problem, once a Chinese emperor, for example, even created a parallel system of spies to know if bureaucrats were honest or following orders, however the system of spies, which in itself was a bureaucracy, met a similar fate. Bureaucracies develop survival instincts similar to a living organism. Their goal, particularly in absence of a higher purpose, can become exclusively to survive and grow while feeding on the society which created them to manage its affairs. Their role can even become parasitic, as they may keep the society alive because its economic system feed them through taxes. Bureaucracies have been known for inefficiencies, as when bureaucrats are motivated only by their self-interest, a complex sub-system of checks and balances - operated again by so many more bureaucrats - is required to keep an eye on everyone else in the system, so on so forth. With more rules and regulations, the bureaucracies become inflexible and aversive of any innovation which may be beneficial for the society. The problem has even been witnessed in large private corporations as well which employ a bureaucratic system of management to run its operations, while effectively killing the entrepreneurial spirit.
Survival of state or corporate bureaucracies is also dependent on existence of an education system which train bureaucratic managers. The education system mimics the very bureaucratic order for which it is meant to train manpower. The necessary education system is as old as the bureaucratic system itself, as the first one was created by a Chinese empire some two millennia ago. The trained graduates from the system are expected to be obedient followers of the system, therefore, are equipped with only a very narrow streak of knowledge which can only enable them to become an effective component of the bureaucratic machine. The bureaucrats are trained to consider the system as sacred, to obey with devotion, to think within the box, devoid of critical thinking. These cognitive characteristics enable them to focus only within their boundaries of their assigned roles. Educated, therefore, does not mean knowledgeable but capable to become an effective component of the bureaucratic system. Contrarily, a mind aware of alternative perspective, capable of critical thinking, which can raise questions about why things are the way they are, cannot be an effective component of the system. Likewise, a mind which craves for knowledge, which raises questions, questions about the legitimacy and the moral significance of a bureaucratic process or its outcome, questions about the very moral viability of the system in itself, is rather a threat to the system. A threat because it would not just fail to develop the necessary conviction but perhaps would also become a barrier towards the goals deemed important by the system.
Would a company - selling sugar loaded fizzy drinks - hire an individual as a sales manager who would feel concerned about the health implications among the heavy users? Would a bureaucrat in his or her right mind be able to effectively function in a central bank yet remain totally against the tools used to formulate the monetary policy to manage the economy, let alone the very logic on which the capitalist market functions? Which corporation would hire, for example, a staunch Marxist (the authors are not inclined toward this ideology) or a Buddhist to run its marketing department? Can a bank hire an individual as business development executive who deeply desire to walk on the footsteps of Abdul Sattar Edhi? If the contemporary education system begin to produce such graduate they would be deemed unemployable by the system perhaps.
Modern state and corporate bureaucracies, therefore, provide a barren ground to cultivate change. Bureaucratic managers lacking the capability and motivation to aspire for radical change, no matter how necessary, can only be expected to conform to prevailing bureaucratic order. Any change which may be necessary to improve the well-being of the society, particularly a change which may goes against the interest of the bureaucracy is nearly impossible to emerge from within the prevailing bureaucratic order. Inaction to mitigate the climate crisis despite the necessary awareness is perhaps the most recent and most significant example which explains the inflexibility of contemporary bureaucratic order prevalent in the public and the private sectors. Inability to implement fundamental structural changes necessary to prevent frequently occurring global economic crisis is perhaps another example.
Complexity of modern society therefore has created a juggernaut, a Frankenstein, which itself cannot handle. Any strategy to get out of the clutches of the bureaucratic order would perhaps require looking at the very root cause of its creation. Complex societies create complex bureaucracies, both in the public and the private sector. The solution perhaps would require simplification of our collective lives. Schumacher’s book ‘Small is Beautiful’ passionately makes this point. Simplification, even localization of our lives perhaps is also fundamentally important from the point of view of mitigating the climate crisis (this is topic of another article; see Helena Norberg work for details). For the same reason, part of our society, particularly the rural areas, where lives are already simplified and relatively free from the clutches of the bureaucratic juggernaut, can perhaps provide a bed rock for the necessary movement toward change. A local-community centric-entrepreneurial revolution on a small and medium scale is also fundamental in this context. Bureaucracies, either state or corporate, require man power to operate. A job oriented mindset prevalent in the society, only turns these bureaucracies more powerful. A rural entrepreneurial revolution on a SME level, with indigenous development and localization in focus, can also create sufficient jobs for the masses who otherwise would have to depend on state or corporate juggernauts for jobs. Entrepreneurial tendency in a community also reduces the reliance on the education system which trains the public for jobs in bureaucratic order. Memon community is a good example in this context, who is both entrepreneurial and did not have to rely on bureaucratic machinery (including the education system) to secure the financial future of their next generation (the new generation unfortunately is perhaps leaving this legacy). Memon community also operates many schools, vocational training centers, health care facilities, and even an informal system to settle disputes, making it less dependent on state bureaucracy to fulfill its socioeconomic needs. Others may also learn from their example.
There in indeed a role of bureaucratic system employed by the state, when it comes to manage the army and the law enforcement, or management of the infrastructure etc. However it is only beneficial when it serves the society instead of bending the society to its will. When bureaucratic system infiltrate into the corporate world from the state institutions, and then into the social or non-market sphere, it transforms the society into a cyborg whose goal is just to ensure its own survival like a parasite. It consumes till the time nothing is left to consume, only to bring its own destruction at hand. Pakistani society is lucky in this context as bureaucratic machinery in the public and private sector has not colonized the society significantly like it has done in the developed world. We have lots of room to create alternative systems for survival as hinted in the previous para. Question is do we possess the necessary will to do so.
Image source: https://www.wearethefrontier.com/projects/the-bureaucratic-machine-canberra-2291/
Francis Fukuyama suggests that state bureaucracies emerged to cope the threat faced by empires from external invaders. After agricultural revolution, when human society produced surplus for the first time, threats of invasion from outsiders became a problem, and as an antidote an army had to be maintained to thwart the invaders. During earlier days, every member of a tribe was trained to fight, but when tribes grew in size and turned into empires, professional armies were created to readily fight back the invaders or initiate an advance into enemy territory. That was a pre-requisite for survival of an empire, particularly when the empire was in competition with another empire of comparable size. To finance the army, a system of taxation was typically employed. The public was convinced to pay a tax in exchange of the security from foreign invaders. To manage the tax collection and utilize it to maintain an army, a bureaucratic system was created, which would manage resources without nepotism and whose managers would serve the empire above any personal agenda. Thwarting nepotism was in fact core principle behind erecting bureaucracies. At first bureaucracies managed the resources necessary to maintain an army, and later law enforcement. Today the system is employed by every state to maintain an entire array of public institutions including system of education, health care, railway, airports, law enforcement, garbage collection, supply of utilities, maintenance of city infrastructure etc.The system, nevertheless, was not infallible. Bureaucracies often ended up serving their own interest instead of the interest of the state or the empire they were meant to serve. When society become complex, bureaucrats become the eyes, ears and arms of ruling elite, and in absence of any alternative mechanism to verify their verdict, the ruling elite often ended up becoming a hostage of the bureaucratic machinery. The power, instead of flowing downwards, flew upwards. To solve the problem, once a Chinese emperor, for example, even created a parallel system of spies to know if bureaucrats were honest or following orders, however the system of spies, which in itself was a bureaucracy, met a similar fate. Bureaucracies develop survival instincts similar to a living organism. Their goal, particularly in absence of a higher purpose, can become exclusively to survive and grow while feeding on the society which created them to manage its affairs. Their role can even become parasitic, as they may keep the society alive because its economic system feed them through taxes. Bureaucracies have been known for inefficiencies, as when bureaucrats are motivated only by their self-interest, a complex sub-system of checks and balances - operated again by so many more bureaucrats - is required to keep an eye on everyone else in the system, so on so forth. With more rules and regulations, the bureaucracies become inflexible and aversive of any innovation which may be beneficial for the society. The problem has even been witnessed in large private corporations as well which employ a bureaucratic system of management to run its operations, while effectively killing the entrepreneurial spirit.
Survival of state or corporate bureaucracies is also dependent on existence of an education system which train bureaucratic managers. The education system mimics the very bureaucratic order for which it is meant to train manpower. The necessary education system is as old as the bureaucratic system itself, as the first one was created by a Chinese empire some two millennia ago. The trained graduates from the system are expected to be obedient followers of the system, therefore, are equipped with only a very narrow streak of knowledge which can only enable them to become an effective component of the bureaucratic machine. The bureaucrats are trained to consider the system as sacred, to obey with devotion, to think within the box, devoid of critical thinking. These cognitive characteristics enable them to focus only within their boundaries of their assigned roles. Educated, therefore, does not mean knowledgeable but capable to become an effective component of the bureaucratic system. Contrarily, a mind aware of alternative perspective, capable of critical thinking, which can raise questions about why things are the way they are, cannot be an effective component of the system. Likewise, a mind which craves for knowledge, which raises questions, questions about the legitimacy and the moral significance of a bureaucratic process or its outcome, questions about the very moral viability of the system in itself, is rather a threat to the system. A threat because it would not just fail to develop the necessary conviction but perhaps would also become a barrier towards the goals deemed important by the system.
Would a company - selling sugar loaded fizzy drinks - hire an individual as a sales manager who would feel concerned about the health implications among the heavy users? Would a bureaucrat in his or her right mind be able to effectively function in a central bank yet remain totally against the tools used to formulate the monetary policy to manage the economy, let alone the very logic on which the capitalist market functions? Which corporation would hire, for example, a staunch Marxist (the authors are not inclined toward this ideology) or a Buddhist to run its marketing department? Can a bank hire an individual as business development executive who deeply desire to walk on the footsteps of Abdul Sattar Edhi? If the contemporary education system begin to produce such graduate they would be deemed unemployable by the system perhaps.
Modern state and corporate bureaucracies, therefore, provide a barren ground to cultivate change. Bureaucratic managers lacking the capability and motivation to aspire for radical change, no matter how necessary, can only be expected to conform to prevailing bureaucratic order. Any change which may be necessary to improve the well-being of the society, particularly a change which may goes against the interest of the bureaucracy is nearly impossible to emerge from within the prevailing bureaucratic order. Inaction to mitigate the climate crisis despite the necessary awareness is perhaps the most recent and most significant example which explains the inflexibility of contemporary bureaucratic order prevalent in the public and the private sectors. Inability to implement fundamental structural changes necessary to prevent frequently occurring global economic crisis is perhaps another example.
Complexity of modern society therefore has created a juggernaut, a Frankenstein, which itself cannot handle. Any strategy to get out of the clutches of the bureaucratic order would perhaps require looking at the very root cause of its creation. Complex societies create complex bureaucracies, both in the public and the private sector. The solution perhaps would require simplification of our collective lives. Schumacher’s book ‘Small is Beautiful’ passionately makes this point. Simplification, even localization of our lives perhaps is also fundamentally important from the point of view of mitigating the climate crisis (this is topic of another article; see Helena Norberg work for details). For the same reason, part of our society, particularly the rural areas, where lives are already simplified and relatively free from the clutches of the bureaucratic juggernaut, can perhaps provide a bed rock for the necessary movement toward change. A local-community centric-entrepreneurial revolution on a small and medium scale is also fundamental in this context. Bureaucracies, either state or corporate, require man power to operate. A job oriented mindset prevalent in the society, only turns these bureaucracies more powerful. A rural entrepreneurial revolution on a SME level, with indigenous development and localization in focus, can also create sufficient jobs for the masses who otherwise would have to depend on state or corporate juggernauts for jobs. Entrepreneurial tendency in a community also reduces the reliance on the education system which trains the public for jobs in bureaucratic order. Memon community is a good example in this context, who is both entrepreneurial and did not have to rely on bureaucratic machinery (including the education system) to secure the financial future of their next generation (the new generation unfortunately is perhaps leaving this legacy). Memon community also operates many schools, vocational training centers, health care facilities, and even an informal system to settle disputes, making it less dependent on state bureaucracy to fulfill its socioeconomic needs. Others may also learn from their example.
There in indeed a role of bureaucratic system employed by the state, when it comes to manage the army and the law enforcement, or management of the infrastructure etc. However it is only beneficial when it serves the society instead of bending the society to its will. When bureaucratic system infiltrate into the corporate world from the state institutions, and then into the social or non-market sphere, it transforms the society into a cyborg whose goal is just to ensure its own survival like a parasite. It consumes till the time nothing is left to consume, only to bring its own destruction at hand. Pakistani society is lucky in this context as bureaucratic machinery in the public and private sector has not colonized the society significantly like it has done in the developed world. We have lots of room to create alternative systems for survival as hinted in the previous para. Question is do we possess the necessary will to do so.
Image source: https://www.wearethefrontier.com/projects/the-bureaucratic-machine-canberra-2291/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Use of any abusive or inappropriate language will give us a reason to delete your comment.