Although “bureaucracy” is a word, its essence is difficult to capture. This is especially true in a time when you feel surrounded by bureaucracies and the adjective “bureaucratic” is anything but term of probation. However, there exists certain overlap between the two concepts arising from certain intervening variables in the practices of bureaucracy in the administration of modern government.
  This study adopted a survey design approach and aimed at establishing that effective bureaucratization is challenged by discontinued, application of ideal bureaucracy as postulated by Marx Weber. It is therefore, the position of this paper that even though Weberian ideal bureaucracy is a classical theory that ensures rationality and precision in administration, it is believed that effective bureaucratization process is modern government should be anchored in the dynamism of human elements in organization management and that the practice of bureaucracy in Nigeria has been adjusted due to corruption and ineptitude in organizational leadenly; the paper concludes that for effective bureaucratic process to take place in modern government especially in reorientation of the bureaucrats, is a sine-qua-non.

Table of contents                                      
1.1       Background of the Study                              
1.2       Statement of the Problem                            
1.3       Objective of the Study                                      
1.4       Significance of the Study                                   
1.5       Scope of the Study                                                     

2.1       Academic and Empirical Review                           
2.2       Theoretical Framework                                              

3.1       Strategies take to achieve the stated Objectives     
3.2       Discussion of the Theoretical Framework                 
3.3       Discussion of the Gaps Identified in the Reviewed Literature
3.4       Conclusion           
3.5       References             

1.1       Background of the Study
The origin of bureaucracy is long lost in the past. For our present purposes, we know that the Romans had bureaucracy through whom they implemented the laws and rules made in Rome, in Rome’s far-flung Empire. Laws and policies were made at Rome and those were implemented throughout the Roman Empire. Those doing the implementation are bureaucrats (Philip K. Howard 2012).
A person who did not make decisions but merely implements them is a bureaucrat. He is implementing other people, not his own personal, decisions. As such, a bureaucrat must be impersonal, objective, impartial, unsympathetic and detached in implementing the decisions he is implementing. Rome gave an order for a general to go to war and conquer yet another territory for it, and the general and the army he leads does as Rome's political authorities (emperor, Senate etc) asked him to do. It is not for him to decide whether the decision to go to war is right or wrong, that is for political actors to determine; his role is to do as told (Otobo, D. (1992).
Bureaucracy is a giant wheel through which society rolls its decisions into motion. Each person working in the bureaucracy is a spoke, an object doing what he is told to do and not asking questions why he should do what he is told to do. The day a bureaucrat asks questions and disobeys orders, he is no longer a bureaucrat, perhaps, and he is now a politician may be. He at that point should get out of the bureaucracy and go to where he belongs, politics, or he is booted out (Leftwich, A. 1995).
A bureaucrat is a humble servant, a machine operated by the decision makers of society. He is not supposed to have opinions of his own, or if he does to keep them, to himself. Just do what your bosses ask you to do or if you do not want to do them you must quit your job. As long as you want to retain your job as a bureaucrat, you must obey orders and do what told to do, it is not relevant whether what you were told to do is right or wrong (Leftwich, A. 1995).
The modern bureaucracy is a 19th century phenomenon. Throughout the Western world efforts were made to professionalize the bureaucracy. Prior to that movement, in America, for example, winning presidents used to sweep into town and appoint their cronies into most government offices. This was called the patronage and spoils system Riggs, E.W. (1963).. You won the presidency and you came to Washington and kicked out whoever was working for Uncle Sam and replaced them with your own people, those who worked in your campaign (Ludwig von Mises 1944).
By the 1920s we essentially have the bureaucracy we have today. Max Weber described this new type of human organization so well that we just have to summarize what he said. As he sees it, the bureaucratic organization is hierarchical in structure, is a pyramid with fewer persons at the top, many at the bottom and few in the middle. Those at the top giving orders to those at the bottom while those at the bottom obey what they were told to do without asking questions. Those at the top, in turn, are told what to do by the civilian leaders of society and they obey without asking questions (Weber, M. 1964).
The jobs that bureaucrats do are not their personal jobs. Rather, those jobs are roles in an organization, and anyone could be hired to perform the job specification described for each role. Indeed, it would be better if machines could do the jobs, so that we did away with human sentimentalities and emotions.
Bureaucratic organizations must follow procedures. They must rigidly adhere to procedures, policies, how things are done there and should never deviate and do their own things. It does not matter whether the person in front of a bureaucrat is a family member or friend or foe, he is supposed to treat him or her according to the rules of his bureau. No favoritisms allowed and no nepotism permitted (Kenneth D. Allan 2005).
Bureaucrats are required to do their jobs without enthusiasm and feelings of rightness or wrongness, but to just do what the job descriptions call on them to do or they are sacked from the bureau (French for office…bureaucrats, office workers).
Bureaucratic organizations are not democratic organizations where all members gather and collectively make decisions regarding what to do. Instead, they are machines used by the decision makers of society to accomplish their goals and objectives. Bureaucratic organizations are non-democratic for employees cannot be democratic when the decisions that they are implementing are not theirs in the first place (Soleye, O. 1989).
Bureaucratic organizations are excellent instruments for those who formulate policies to implement them.
Even then, bureaucracies remained small affairs. Governments until the twentieth century were small affairs. It was after the 1929 depression when it was accepted that governments ought to be playing a role in the economy, largely due to the influence of socialists and John Maynard Keynes economic views that governments grew in size. In the United States, the New Deal polices of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt expanded the United States government from a few thousands to million employees. Today, over two million employees work for Uncle Sam, plus another two million in the military. The various states, counties and cities in the United States have their own civil servants. Today, many Americans work for the government or government related employers. The bureaucracy is now a humongous affair, touching just about every citizen's life ( Retrieved 2014-05-02).
In Africa, there were really no bureaucracies, not as we know them in the West, until the twentieth century. Hausa and Yoruba states had some bureaucrats working for them, but these employees, by and large, were not really impersonal bureaucrats’ ala Max Weber. It was when the European colonialists established their rule in Africa that the modern bureaucracy began to take roots in Africa (Nnoli, O. 1980).
In Nigeria, the birth of the modern bureaucracy can be traced to the Royal Niger Company. The British Government took over from the Royal Niger Companying in the early 20th century and formed the Southern and Northern protectorates of Nigeria in 1906 (Stewart R. Clegg 2011). In 1914, the British amalgamated the two protectorates into one Nigeria and began the enterprise called Nigeria. The colonial officials forced the personnel of the Royal Niger Company and used them to start the first Nigerian civil service (Okafor, E.E. 2005).
Nigeria gained her independence from Britain in 1960. Thereafter, Nigerian leaders expanded the role of government in society and began expanding the bureaucracy.
If you create a new function for government, you must also form a new bureaucracy for it to accomplish that function. For example, if you accept the function of supervising environmental matters as appropriate role for government, then you must have a civilian bureaucracy to make sure that the government's rules regarding protection of the environment are implemented (Ronald J. Williams 1972).
Modern society and Nigeria is not an exception, it’s giving governments a lot to do and, as such, creating bureaucracies all over the place. Today, governments are the largest employers in Nigeria.
The civil bureaucracy or service is the term used to describes the system of authority relationships that exist between men, offices and methods that government uses to implement its programmes. It does not cover political appointee such as ministers and Advisers or members of the judiciary at the federal, state and local government tiers of government. The primary function of civil servants is to advise the political executives or appointees on all aspects of governmental activities to ensure formulation of the policy which is consonant with the objectives of the government of the day (Riegel, Jeffrey 2012).
1.2       Statement Of Problem
The problems besetting the civil bureaucracy in Nigeria could be discussed in three thematic formats: Structural, Administrative attitude and behaviour, and Political and economic respectively. According to Nnoli (1980), Adebayo (2001) and Yusufu (1992) who posited that the structural problems besetting the civil service in Nigeria fall roughly into four basic categories, namely, personnel regulations, personnel qualifications, organizational structure, and work environment. Each plays its role in diminishing the administrative capacity in Government bureaucracy. The personnel regulations state requirements for entry into the bureaucracy as well as procedures for promotion and dismissal. Nigerian Government in Nigeria stipulates a checklist of requirements for entry, including federal character. Theoretically, positions are supposed to be filled on the basis of merit. However, political, family, ethnic and religious factors are relevant considerations in achieving bureaucratic appointments.
Adebayo (2001) and Otobo (1992) added that as regards personnel qualifications, employees entering the Government and civil services through the use of spoils system might lack the required technical skills for their positions. Moreover, on-the-job training programmes are weak and ineffective. The fallout of this process is the emphasis on filing slot rather than matching employees’ skills with the needs of the position. In addition to the above factor, most Government bureaucrats are poorly paid and as a result resort to multiple job-holding in the informal sector thereby impacting negatively on their attitude and commitment to work, (see Onyeonuru, 2004, Okoh (1998) and Okafor (1998). Ejiofor and Anagolu (1984) Ejiofor (1987), Onyeonuru, (2005) and Okafor (2005) added that the attitudes and behaviour of Government bureaucrats in Nigeria are not conducive to the efficient administration of the affairs of their government organizations. This is because most bureaucrats are very concerned about the security of their positions and as such are not inclined to the initiative thus, more concerned with status since authority breeds status.
Furthermore, the ethno-religious hostilities in Nigeria and the crisis of confidence from the populace tend to reinforce and compound the problems of Nigerian Government bureaucracies. As identified by Okafor (2005) while quoting Soleye (1989) “Government bureaucrats, regardless of their dedication to national goals and the norms of professionalism, tend to be viewed as biased and self serving by the masses” (Okafor, 2005:68). Nnoli (1980) adds – “the masses tend to make the basic proposition that bureaucrats are influenced by religious, ethnic and other parochial considerations and act accordingly. As a result of the above thesis, the populace became ignorant of the role of the bureaucracy occasioned by their poor orientation and see government jobs as `no body’s job and which must provide for every one’”.
A politically neutral, professional core of senior administrations is rare in Nigeria (Ejiofor and Anagolu, 1987, Soloye (1989) and Okafor (2005). Okoh (1998) and Okafor (2005) provided reasons that account for this practice. First, political leaders in Nigeria are under intense pressure to reward their supporters. Second, few political leaders accept the premise of a neutral civil/Nigerian Government. As most change of regimes were a result of military coup, it is only logical to expect that incoming leaders would view incumbent senior bureaucrats as part and parcel of the regime they had just overthrown. Third, incoming political leaders, and particularly leaders would want to shape the ideological direction (if any) of the Government/civil service for their easy control (Okoh, 1998). In other words, there is a problem between civil service and political leadership.
Katako (1971) observes that “…the politicians are also partly to be blamed for not remedying the situation. Their educational and professional background may be the reason, some of the politicians, of very humble origins, who have never had the chance to work with administrative and professional contributions, they tend to make a valuable and effective contribution to the process of nation-building, then it is absolutely essential that a certain amount of confidence should exist between civil servants and the politicians” (Katako, 1971:417).

1.3       Objective of the Study
The broad objective of this study is to examine the democratization of bureaucratic process in Modern Government of Nigeria. However, the achievement of the overall objectives shall be guided by the following specific objectives.
i.                    Bureaucratic practice and process in Nigerian Government
ii.                 The challenges of Democratizing Bureaucracy in Nigeria
iii.               Suggestions for effective Bureaucratic process / practice in Nigerian Government
1.4       Significance of the Study
This study will be of immense significance to other researchers and students in Management. It will contribute immensely to Nigerian Modern Government because the essence of democracy embodies the ability to give and take, it symbolizes maturity, civility, zero sum game, impersonal behavior, walking a fine line and within a defined structure. It will make suggestions for effective Bureaucratic Process / practice in Nigerian Government.
1.5       Scope of the Study
The scope of this study is to basically examine the democratization of bureaucratic process in modern government of Nigeria since democracy embodies the ability to give and take, it symbolizes maturity, civility, zero sum game, impersonal behavior, walking a fine line and within a defined structure and on the other hand, bureaucracy is "a body of non elective government officials" and/or "an administrative policy-making group. This will disclose more detailed information processes of attaining a better democracy.

2.1       Empirical / Academic Review
There have been extensive researches by many scholars from different backgrounds and they have measured the Democratization of Bureaucratic process in modern Government in different countries. Each of these studies has been distinguished by differences in research settings, differences in definition of explanatory variables, differences in the indexing procedures and differences in the statistical data analytical tools used. It is obvious that studies on Bureaucratic processes and practices are more prevalent in developed countries than in developing ones.
            Vincent de Gournay in the 18th century carried out an empirical research on the Bureaucracy in France and discovered it to be a form of Government (rule by officials) which he considered as an illness (bureaumania). Subsequent writers tended to adopt a polemical approach to the subject and often disparaged what they called Government by officials and the officials who conducted government business. Thus, the limitation of the classical theorist set the stage for the more sophisticated research works of Mocsa, Michael and Weber. Essentially, they were all concerned with their research findings on how power and authority are distributed in a society. For Mosca, all existing governmental systems are earlier feudal or bureaucratic. In the Feudal state, the members of the ruling class performed all administrative tasks whereas in the bureaucratic state, administration was the province of a small section of the ruling class – the bureaucracy.
            Similarly, Marx Weber (1864 – 1920) took a huge task of advancing of advancing the sociological accounts of Mosca and Michels, and at the same time doing justice to the high degree if refinement that the concept has reached in non-sociological literature. Also to be taken into account is that most of the researches on bureaucracy are predicted on Weber’s formulation. In Weber’s research, he was also interested on how power and authority is and ought to be distributed in the society. In his research, he identified three forms of power and relationships – traditional / patrimonial, charismatic / personality, and legal / rational. For him, power was based on charismatic and tradition, while they may be legitimate, were hardly rational. He therefore postulated that administrative arrangements based on such power bases would not tend to be arbitrary and unstable but would ultimately tend to be inefficient. He stated that legal power was based on a set of rules accepted by both rulers and ruled. The ruler (selected or elected) therefore exercises power according to the limits, constraints, and latitudes set by legally sanctioned rules and regulations. These rules also prescribed in a rational way, the arrangement of the offices, the rights and duties of each office and office-holder, and the recruitment process. In addition, and of much importance, the position of the office-holder cannot be sold or inherited.
            From the studies carried out by different scholars, it would be agreed that developed bureaucracy in Nigeria is of more colonial bequeathal. The British government during the era of colonial regime introduced bureaucracy in order to avoid utter confusion and chaos that would have ensured in managing the complex administrative system of Nigeria society. Nigerians on gaining self dependence inherited it without any modification especially taken into cognizance our administrative ecology. This has hitherto affected greatly the bureaucratic practice in Nigerian public administration and democratization of bureaucratic process in modern government.
            Be that as it may, there is no known Nigerian or African scholar who has examined the “democratization of bureaucratic process in modern government: The Nigerian experience” even though the Nigerian government has adopted bureaucracy. This therefore makes this study very imperative and timely. Led by these developments, it became highly imperative for such studies to be carried out. This is the major research gap which this study has identified and seeks to fill in this study.
            Hence, this study seeks to investigate the “democratization of bureaucratic process in modern government: The Nigerian experience”
2.2       Theoretical Framework
In the literature on Government administration, the term bureaucracy is used as a synonym of administration. This is the usage to be adopted in the paper and the focus is on governmental bureaucracy/administration. The other concepts that are used more or less synonymous of governmental bureaucracy/administration are civil service and Government service. Nuances in the usages of these inter-related concepts are explained as appropriate in the paper. State bureaucracy or the civil service is known to be part and parcel of the executive branch of government. It is the institution that is charged with the responsibility of formulating and implementing policies and programmes of the government. In other words, while it is the duty of the political executive to determine and direct the focus of policies, the state bureaucracy is the administrative machinery through which the objectives are actualized. The state bureaucracy could therefore be described as the agency through which the activities of the government are realized. There are two main contending views on the study of bureaucracy; namely the Weberian and Marxian. According to the former, bureaucracy is viewed as a large-scale, complex, hierarchical and specialized organization designed to attain rational objectives in the most efficient and effective manner. The realization of such rational goals and objectives are maximized through the bureaucratic qualities of formalism and impersonality in the application of rules and regulations in the operation and management of organizations. This classical bureaucracy of Weber is seen as a very superior organization mainly because of certain qualities such as hierarchy, division of labour anchored on specialization, policy of promotion and recruitment based on merit, in addition to impersonality in the conduct of official duties, security of tenure and strict observance of rules regulations, among others (Weber, 1964).
Shiriji’s thesis supports Marx’s view on Bureaucracy. On his own part, Karl Marx viewed bureaucracy as an instrument of oppression, exploitation and damnation in the hands of the dominant class who control and manipulate the state and its apparatus in the society. More specifically, bureaucracy is conceived as instrument usually employed by the ruling class to accumulate wealth and maintain their domination and control of the state. This basic driving force of bureaucracy is usually concealed by both the dominant class and the bureaucrats, as efforts are constantly made to project the bureaucracy as a neutral and development agency working for the interest of everybody in the society. But this is only a smokescreen to hide its real motive and responsibilities. To a very large extent, the future and interest of bureaucracy are closely interlinked with those of the ruling class and the state.

According to Nnadozie (2007:10):
…due to the fact that bureaucracy is not an integral part of the capitalist ruling class, it has a certain measure of autonomy which makes conflict with its master possible.
But in this conflict bureaucracy is always disadvantaged and the conflict itself cannot go beyond certain limits, which are always determined, by the existing social forces and relations of production. From fore going, it follows that bureaucracy does not occupy an organic place in the social structure, as it is not directly linked with the production process. Its existence and development therefore has transient and parasitic character. The other two Marxist characterization of bureaucracy worthy of note are those of alienation and incompetence. It is by the process of alienation that social forces escape from the control of man, attain an autonomous status and turns against man. In the case of bureaucracy, it is by alienating the populace that it becomes an independent and oppressive force, which is felt by the majority of the people as a mysterious and distant entity that regulates their activities. This attitude is reinforced by the bureaucrats` tendency to create special myths and symbols around it that mystify its action and position. In this processes, bureaucracy become a close system that jealously guards its secrets, prerogatives, and presents to the outside world a united front of silence and hostility (Nnadozie, 2007: 11-12) In the area of incompetence the Marxist stresses the lack of initiatives and imagination by the bureaucrats who are always scared of taking any kind of responsibility. The bureaucrat is not intimated by this problem rather believes it is capable of doing anything. Consequently, the bureaucrats continually expand its area of functions and domain in order to consolidate its position and prerogatives. This “bureaucratic irredentism”, helps the bureaucrats to conceive themselves as if they have statutory duty to perform.
Furthermore, this process of self-aggrandizement is accompanied by what Marx described as the “sordid materialism” of bureaucrats. That is, the internal and continuous struggle for promotion, careerism and infantile attachment to trivial status symbols and prestige among bureaucrats. The bureaucracy broadly defined, refers to that machinery of government designed to execute the decisions and policies of political office holders. Political leaders make policies. The Government bureaucracy implements it. If the bureaucracy lacks the capacity to implement the policies of the political leadership, those policies, however well intentioned, will not be executed in an effective manner (Anise, 1984, Okafor, 2005). It is one thing to promise development and it is quite another to achieve it. Viewed from this strand, the role of Government bureaucracy in the process of economic, social and political development looms large indeed. According to Okafor (2005), the role of bureaucracy is critical to all areas of development process. In Nigeria, Government bureaucracy is a very vital element of the development process. Bureaucratic capacity is not a sufficient condition for development, but it is most assuredly a necessary condition. The major puzzles for this paper are – what are those human and structural factors that are militating against Government bureaucracy from rendering efficient and effective service delivery in Nigeria and what are the best possible ways out?
However, we will use the term bureaucracy to mean civil service (Free Merriam Webster Dictionary". 2014-05-02. Retrieved 2014-05-02), which has now become part of the agency of the executive branch of government in the newly emergent countries in Africa (such as Nigeria). By definition and for the purpose of this paper, Government bureaucracy is used to refer to the administrative machinery, personnel of government at the various tiers of government and the body of rules and regulations that govern the behaviours of these personnel in government.
But differently, the bureaucracy refers to all organizations that exist as part of government machinery for executing policy decisions and delivering services that are of value to the populace. Also, it is a mandatory institution of the state under the 1999 constitution of the Federal Government of Nigeria, as outlined in chapter VI of the constitution under the title – The executive, Part I (D) and Part II (C) which provides for bureaucracies at both the federal and state levels of government.
The Government bureaucracy is made up of the legislative bodies at the national and State assemblies, the judiciary, the police, members of the Armed forces and Para-military agencies, Parastatals or extra-ministerial departments and agencies (including social service) commercially oriented agencies, regulatory agencies, educational institutions and research institutions among others.

In this chapter, strategies if taken could result in the accomplishment of each stated objectives are discussed. Moreover, the chapter also contains discussion of the stated theoretical framework and discussions of the literature review with a view to identifying the gap in previous literatures.
3.1       Strategies taken to achieve the stated objectives
This study made use of theories from different scholars (Max Weber 1922; Karl Marx 1843; John Stuart Mill 1860, Griffith 1976; Albrow 1970). From these theories, the researcher was able to disclose materials which were used to write about;
i.                    Bureaucratic practice and process in Nigerian Government
ii.                 The challenges of Democratizing Bureaucracy in Nigeria
iii.               Suggestions for effective Bureaucratic process / practice in Nigerian Government
3.2       Discussion of Theoretical Framework
The German sociologist Max Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration, government, and business in his 1922 work Economy and Society. His critical study of the bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work. It was Weber who began the studies of bureaucracy and whose works led to the popularization of this term. Many aspects of modern public administration go back to him, and a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service". As the most efficient and rational way of organizing, bureaucratization for Weber was the key part of the rational-legal authority, and furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalization of the Western society. Although he is not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber does argue that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and (formally) rational way in which human activity can be organized, and that thus is indispensable to the modern world.
Weberian ideal bureaucracy is a classical theory that ensures rationality and perception in administration, it is believed that effective bureaucratization process in modern government should be anchored in the dynamism of human elements in organizational management and that the practice of bureaucracy in Nigeria has been adjusted due to corruption and ineptitudes in organizational leadenly.
Karl Marx theorized about the role and function of bureaucracy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, published in 1843. In his Philosophy of Right, Hegel had supported the role of specialized officials in the role of public administration, although he never used the term "bureaucracy" himself. Marx by contrast was opposed to the bureaucracy. He saw the development of bureaucracy in government as a natural counterpart to the development of the corporation in private society. Marx posited that while the corporation and government bureaucracy existed in seeming opposition, in actuality they mutually relied on one another to exist. He wrote that "The Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society."
Writing in the early 1860s, political scientist John Stuart Mill theorized that successful monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their existence in Imperial China, the Russian Empire, and the regimes of Europe. Mill referred to bureaucracy as a distinct form of government, separate from representative democracy. He believed bureaucracies had certain advantages, most importantly the accumulation of experience in those who actually conduct the affairs. Nevertheless, he thought bureaucracy as a form of governance compared poorly to representative government, as it relied on appointment rather than direct election. Mill wrote that ultimately the bureaucracy stifles the mind, and that "A bureaucracy always tends to become a pedantocracy.
3.3       Discussion of Gaps Identified In the Reviewed Literature
From the literatures reviewed, it was observed that the scholars who researched about this topic explain the challenges of Democratizing Bureaucracy in Nigeria based on the British findings. Democratization for many meant the expansion of the electorate in several steps thought over by conservatives who argued against democracy and progressives who promoted these measures. In recent years, democratization came to mean an expansion of the participation of groups of people involved in a particular field of action: workers, students, more especially but also administrative personnel of any kind.
Here is the center of the conflict between democracy and bureaucracy. Griffith (1976) observed that it is undeniable and manifest in the extended pamphlet literature that these democratization efforts have in common a strong anti-bureaucratic bias. He went further to say that this problem of democratization is as we said, very much involved in contemporary discussions of bureaucracy. In these and similar cases, democracy and democratization are seen as a substitute for bureaucracy. The argument depends upon certain misunderstanding about legitimacy and authority. These in turn are as a result of mistaken views of power as necessarily to be understood in terms of command and obedience – a widespread view of power since Hobbes.
Ikelegbe (1995) maintained that in transitional societies like Nigeria, the problems are much more serious. As Fred Riggs has argued, the super Imposition of modern Bureaucratic organizations on societies still in transition from the traditional to modern, leads to Bureaucratic formalism, and often times, administrative normlessness. Albrow (1970) asserts that the degree of rationality a Bureaucracy might have depended on the cultural context in which it is located. Therefore, he considers invalid for developing countries the basis on which Weber constructed his “ideal Bureaucratic”.
Nigeria civil service is so democratized that many civil servants in Nigeria resort to political partnership silently in order to retain their positions. The position of permanent secretaries, being the highest position in the civil service has become political appointments. Instead of appointing them from among highest rank of the civil servants, the ruling party prefers using it as a way of compensating political supporters; hence, people from all works of life are pointed into positions of permanent secretaries thereby neglecting the Weberian concepts of technical competence.
The democratization of Nigerian Bureaucratic set is further exacerbated by Federal character principle and quota system. Geo-political zones and their ethnic origin are considered much in employment rather than competence. For instance, in Nigeria, to ensure equal representation in the civil service, unqualified persons from the North were made to head their entrenchment in the Nigerian constitution. The resultant effects of it are inefficiency, indiscipline and corruption in the civil service. The people so appointed see their positions as that of purely serving the interest of their religions instead of the nation.
Similarly, Nigerian perspective of Bureaucracy according to Okpata (2001) is a destruction of Weberian ideal type because technically competence, impersonal orientation and the separation of the incumbent from office are more or less mere semantics.
3.4       Suggestions for Effective Bureaucratic Process / Practice In Nigerian Government
            The following suggestions are therefore considered imperative for the re-modification and repositioning of Nigerian bureaucratic setup for efficiency and effectiveness in democratization of bureaucratic process.
1.      Our informal organization and traditional values and norms should be taken into account. Since, there is much emphasis on our traditional values which most often contradicts with our bureaucratic principles; the recognition and harmonization of these values with bureaucratic principles will make for a more result-oriented bureaucracy.
2.      Our bureaucratic process should be reformed to allow personal growth and initiative. This idea of “bureaucratic epistemology” according to scholar (1970), in which the only legitimate instrument of knowledge is objective and technically trained intellect no longer hold especially with the recognition that workers perform better and derive job satisfaction when given extent of autonomy to do their work.
3.      Reducing political influence on bureaucratic practice is advocated. Though one cannot separate politics from administration of public bureaucracy. The intervention has major weakness for organizational effectiveness both therefore and since the emergence of military rule.
4.      There should be re-orientation of the bureaucrats for them to know that they are expected to protect national interest since that will guarantee the protection of ethnic interest. The problem Nigeria has been facing is largely because our leaders pursue regional interest instead of national interest. In addition, both political and administrative leaders should become more responsive and pragmatic to the building of effective bureaucracy in Nigeria.
5.      The re-modification of the bureaucratic principles should de-emphasize over conformity with the rules. Strict adherence to any standing order should be contingent upon the prevailing circumstances. Any rule requiring a dying patient to go through a rigorous process before being attended to by a doctor for instance is quite inhuman. There should always be human face in applying bureaucratic process. The ritualistic attachment to routine procedures should always give room for democratization of bureaucratic process.
6.      Bureaucratic corruption should be fought to a standstill. The government office holders are known to aid and albeit corruption. Several cases has been recorded where office-holders conspire and embezzle millions of Nigeria of unspent budgetary allocation of a state or ministry. Bureaucrats found indulging in any form of corrupt practices should always be severely dealt with to serve as a deterrent to others.
7.      Nigerian Government should demonstrate sincere commitment to correcting the maladies of our public bureaucracy. They should start be ensuring that they are well remunerated. For instance, the gap between what worker (civil servant) and what the politicians are paid is so wide despite that the former do the major work while the latter enjoy the glory. The incessant industrial action in Nigeria is not healthy for efficient and effective bureaucratic process.
3.5       Conclusion
Bureaucracies are really a modern phenomenon. Though they existed in the past, such as in the Roman Empire, what we now regard as bureaucracies are inventions of the 19th century Europe and North America. We had Chinese mandarins, who took examinations to obtain their jobs, but they were not quite what we mean by modern bureaucrats. The emperor, for example, could hire and fire the Chinese worker. In a modern bureaucracy, even the president cannot fire the government worker. Given their union contracts, it often takes years to fire a bureaucrat and it costs more in money and effort to fire them than it is worth. Once a bureaucrat is hired and he passes probation, he is difficult to let go.
Modern bureaucrats are hired to do their jobs in an impersonal manner and, by and large, do so. In Nigeria, there is a personal quality to the civil service. If you know somebody working in a government ministry, he is more likely to serve you first and well before others on the line (what line, since when did Nigerians started queuing up to be served?).
This lecture is designed to be basic and not graduate seminar material so we shall not get into debates as to what to do to fix the Nigerian bureaucracy. Put your energy to figuring out a way to make the Nigerian civil service less corrupt and that would be enough improvement for the time being.

"Bureaucracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"Bureaucracy Definition". Investopedia. 2009-09-04. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"Byzantine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". 2012-08-31. Retrieved 2014-05-02.
"definition of bureaucracy". Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"How to bend the rules of corporate bureaucracy". 2002-11-08. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"Still a bureaucracy: Normal paperwork continues its flow at Vatican". Retrieved 26 May 2013.
Abah, N. C (2000), Development Administration, A Multi-Disciplinary Approach, Enugu: John Jacob’s classic publishers Ltd.
Adebayo, A. (2001) Principles and Practice of Public Administration. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
Beetham, David. Bureaucracy. Retrieved 2014-05-02.
David Luban; Alan Strudler; David Wasserman (1992). "Moral Responsibility in the Age of Bureaucracy". Michigan Law Review 90 (8).
David Martin (2010). "Gates Criticizes Bloated Military Bureaucracy". CBS News.
Devin Dwyer (2009). "Victims of 'Health Insurance Bureaucracy' Speak Out". ABC News.
Ejiofor, P.N. (1987). Management in Nigeria: Theories and Issues. Onitsha: Africana-Fep.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Abuja: Government Printers
Federal Republic of Nigeria (and) The Obasanjo Reforms: Public Service reforms and national
Garrett et al. (March–April 2006). "Assessing the Impact of Bureaucracy Bashing by Electoral Campaigns". Public Administration Review: 228–240. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
George Ritzer (29 September 2009). Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 38–42. ISBN 978-0-07-340438-7. Retrieved 22 March 2011.
Handbook of Administrative History - Paper - J. C. N. Raadschelders. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
J.C.N. Raadschelders (1998). Handbook of Administrative History. Transaction Publishers. p. 142.
John Stuart Mill (1861). "VI—Of the Infirmities and Dangers to which Representative Government is Liable". Considerations on Representative Government. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
Katako, J.Y (1971) “Bureaucracy And Nation-Building In Africa”. The Quarterly Journal of Administration. Vol. 4, July.
Kenneth D. Allan (2 November 2005). Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social Worl. Pine Forge Press. pp. 172–176. ISBN 978-1-4129-0572-5.
Leftwich, A (1995), “Bringing Politics Back In: Towards A Model Of The Developmental State”, The Journal Of Developmental Studies , Vol. 31 No3.
Ludwig von Mises (1944). Bureaucracy. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
Michael Voslensky (1984). Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (1st edition ed.). Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-17657-0.
Nnoli, O. (1980) Ethnic Politics in Nigeria, Enugu: Forth Dimension Publishers.
Okafor, E.E. (2005) “Public Bureaucracy and Development in Nigeria: A Critical Overview of Impediments to Public Service Delivery” CODESRIA Bulletin, Nos. 3-4
Okoh, A.O. (1988) Personnel and Human Resources Management in Nigeria. Lagos: Amfitop.
Onyeoruru, J.P. (2005) Industrial Sociology: An African Perspective. Ibadan: Sam Lad Printers.
Otobo, D. (1992) “Organized Labour and SAP Policies in Nigeria”, In Otobo, D. (Ed) Further
Philip K. Howard (2012). "To Fix America's Education Bureaucracy, We Need to Destroy It". The Atlantic.
Readings in Nigeria Industrial Relations, Lagos: Malthouse.
Riegel, Jeffrey. "Confucius". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Riggs, E.W. (1963) Bureaucracy and Political Development. Princeton, N.J: Princeton Uni-Press.
Robert K. Merton (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL;Free Press. pp. 195–206. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
Ronald J. Williams (1972). "Scribal Training in Ancient Egypt". Journal of the American Oriental Society 92 (2).
Ronald N. Johnson; Gary D. Libecap (1994). The Federal Civil Service System and the Problem of Bureaucracy. University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–11. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
Soleye, O. (1989) “Work and Government Work, Faculty Of The Social Sciences Lecture”.
Stewart R. Clegg, Martin Harris, Harro Höpfl, ed. (2011). Managing Modernity: Beyond Bureaucracy?. Oxford University Press.
Transformation, Abuja: Federal Ministry of Information
Weber, M. (1964) The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press.
Wren, Daniel & Bedeian, Arthur (2009). "Chapter 10:The Emergence of the Management Process and Organization Theory". The Evolution of Management Thought. Wiley.
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin