IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF M.SC/PHD IN MANAGEMENT
PG/M.SC/P.HD
Abstract
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
Abstract
Table
of contents
CHAPTER
ONE: INTRODUCTION
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
CHAPTER
TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Academic and Empirical Review
2.2 Theoretical Framework
CHAPTER
THREE: METHODOLOGY
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
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
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 (Books.google.com. 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.
CHATER
TWO
REVIEW
OF RELATED LITERATURES
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". www.merriam-webster.com. 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.
CHAPTER THREE
DISCUSSION
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.
References
"Bureaucracy
- Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary".
Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"Bureaucracy
Definition". Investopedia. 2009-09-04. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"Byzantine
- Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary".
Merriam-webster.com. 2012-08-31. Retrieved 2014-05-02.
"definition
of bureaucracy". Thefreedictionary.com. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"How
to bend the rules of corporate bureaucracy". Usatoday30.usatoday.com.
2002-11-08. Retrieved 2013-05-26.
"Still
a bureaucracy: Normal paperwork continues its flow at Vatican".
Americancatholic.org. 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. Books.google.com. 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. Books.google.com.
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.