SEMINAR PAPER PRESENTED TO THE
DEPARTMENT
OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
FACULTY
OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF M.SC/PHD IN MANAGEMENT
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 Ebonyi State
Local Government System has been adjusted due to corruption and ineptitude. The
paper concludes that for effective bureaucratic process to take place in Ebonyi
State Local Government System especially in reorientation of the bureaucrats is
a sine-qua-non.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Abstract i
Table
of contents ii
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 6
1.3 Objective of the Study 7
1.4 Significance of the Study 7
1.5 Scope of the Study 9
CHAPTER TWO:
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.1 Academic and Empirical Review 10
2.2 Theoretical Framework 40
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Strategies take to achieve the stated
Objectives 54
3.2 Discussion of the Theoretical Framework 54
3.3 Discussion of the Gaps Identified in the
Reviewed Literature 55
3.4 Conclusion 56
3.5 References 59
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1989).
Bureaucratic
organizations are excellent instruments for those who formulate political
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 (John 1929).
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 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 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 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 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.
1.2 Statement of Problem
The problems
besetting the Ebonyi State Local Government 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 posit that the structural problems
besetting the Local Government System 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. Ebonyi State Local Government System
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) posit that as regards personnel qualifications, employees entering
the Ebonyi State Local Government System 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 filling slot rather than matching employees’ skills with the
needs of the position. In addition to the above factor, most Local 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) posit
that the attitudes and behaviour of Local Government bureaucrats in Ebonyi
State are not conducive to the efficient administration of the affairs of their
Local Government. This is because most Local Government 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 inter-communal and the zonal hostilities in Ebonyi State and the crisis of
confidence from the populace tend to reinforce and compound the problems of Ebonyi
State Local Government System 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 – “that 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 Local 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 Ebonyi State
Local Government System; Ejiofor (1987), Anagolu, 1987, Soloye (1989) and
Okafor (2005). Okoh (1998) and Okafor (2005) provided reasons that account for
this practice. First, political leaders of Ebonyi State Local Government System
are under intense pressure to reward their supporters. Second, few political
leaders accept the premise of a neutral Local Government System. 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 Local Government System service for their easy control (Okoh, 1998). In
other words, there is a problem between Local Government Administration 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.
To ascertain Bureaucratic
practice and process in Ebonyi State Local Government System
ii.
To identify The challenges of
Democratizing Bureaucracy Ebonyi State Local Government System
iii.
To suggest the effective
Bureaucratic process / practice in Ebonyi State Local Government System
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 Ebonyi State Local Government
System 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 and practice in Ebonyi State Local Government
System.
1.5 Scope of the Study
The
scope of this study is to basically examine the democratization of bureaucratic
theory in Ebonyi State Local Government System 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 Ebonyi State Local Government System 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.
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 of 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.
Vincent
Gournay (1890) 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.
Ludwig
von Mises in his 1944 work in Bureaucracy, the Austrian economist Ludwig von
Mises was highly critical of all bureaucratic systems. He believed that
bureaucracy should be the target of universal opprobrium, and noticed that in
the political sphere it had few defenders, even among progressives. Mises saw
bureaucratic processes at work in both the private and public spheres; however
he believed that bureaucratization in the private sphere could only occur as a
consequence of government interference. He wrote that "No private
enterprise will ever fall prey to bureaucratic methods of management if it is
operated with the sole aim of making profit."
Robert
K. Merton an American sociologist in his research expanded on Weber's theories
of bureaucracy in his work Social Theory and Social Structure, published in
1957. While Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's analysis, he also
considered the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which he attributed to a
"trained incapacity" resulting from "over conformity." He
saw bureaucrats as more likely to defend their own entrenched interests than to
act to benefit the organization as a whole. He also believed bureaucrats took
pride in their craft, which led them to resist changes in established routines.
Merton also noted that bureaucrats emphasized formality over interpersonal
relationships, and had been trained to ignore the special circumstances of
particular cases, causing them to come across as "arrogant" and
"haughty."
Woodrow
Wilson also in his research wrote as an academician as a professor at Bryn Mawr
College, his essay “The Study of Administration” argued for a bureaucracy as a
professional cadre, devoid of allegiance to fleeting politics of the day.
Wilson advocated a bureaucracy that "is a part of political life only as
the methods of the counting house are a part of the life of society; only as
machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time,
raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that
through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims
of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress." Wilson
did not advocate a replacement of rule by the governed; he simply advised
"Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics
sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its
offices." This essay became the foundation for the study of public
administration in America.
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."
John Stuart Mill in his own research
wrote 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."
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 Local Government System.
Be
that as it may, there is no known Nigerian or African scholar who has examined
the “democratization of bureaucratic theory of management and organization in Ebonyi
State Local Government System” even though the Ebonyi State Local Government
System 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 theory of
management and organization in Ebonyi State Local Government System”
2.2 Theoretical Framework
In the
literature on Local Government System, 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 Local Governmental bureaucracy. Nuances in the usages of these
inter-related concepts are explained as appropriate in the paper. Local
Government bureaucracy 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 Local Government
System. In other words, while it is the duty of the political executive to
determine and direct the focus of policies, the Local Government bureaucracy is
the administrative machinery through which these objectives are actualized. The
Local Government bureaucracy could therefore be described as the agency through
which the activities of the Local Government System. 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. Max Weber was a German
Sociologist. He taught bureaucratic theory to be the most rational known means
of carrying out imperative control over human beings. Although he recognized
the importance of personal (characteristic) leadership was indispensable for
the mass administration required in a modern society (Albers 1974). 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 Ebonyi State Local Government System, 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 Local 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 Local Government System 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 Ebonyi
State in Nigeria). By definition and for the purpose of this paper, Local 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 local government.
But
differently, the bureaucracy refers to all organizations that exist as part of local
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. It further refers to a system of organization
and management in which roles, tasks and relationships among people and
positions and thereby defined, carefully prescribed and controlled in
accordance with final authority. (Mc Farland 1979; 297-300)
The Local 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 is 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 1922, Karl 1843, John 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 Ebonyi State Local Government System.
ii.
The challenges of Democratizing
Bureaucracy Ebonyi State Local Government System.
iii.
Suggestions for effective
Bureaucratic process and practice Ebonyi State Local Government System.
3.2 Discussion
of Theoretical Framework
The
German sociologist Max Weber described many ideal-typical forms of management,
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 Human Resource
Management 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 theory in
modern local government system should be anchored in the dynamism of human
elements in organizational management and that the practice of bureaucracy in Ebonyi
State 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 posits 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 1861) theorized that successful
monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their
existence in Imperial China, the Russian Empire, and the regimes of Europe. John
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. John 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 Ebonyi
State Local Government System of 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”.
Ebonyi
State Local Government System is so democratized that many local government
employees in the state resort to political partisanship silently in order to
retain their positions. The position of Heads of Local Government
Administration, being the highest position in the local government service has
become political appointments. Instead of appointing them from among highest
rank of the local government employees, 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 Ebonyi State Local Government System is further exacerbated
by Federal character principle and quota system. Senatorial and Geo-political
zones and local government of origin are considered much in employment rather
than competence. For instance, in Ebonyi State, to ensure equal representation
in the Local Government Service, unqualified persons from the Ebonyi Central
Senatorial zone were made to heads of councils. The resultant effects of it are
inefficiency, indiscipline and corruption in the Local Government Service. The
people so appointed see their positions as that of purely serving the interest
of their Local Government Areas instead of the state.
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
Theory and Practice in Ebonyi State Local Government System
The following suggestions are
therefore considered imperative for the re-modification and repositioning of Ebonyi
State Local Government bureaucratic setup for efficiency and effectiveness in
democratization of bureaucratic theory.
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 theories 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.
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 Ebonyi State Local Government System has been
facing is largely because our leaders pursue senatorial interest instead of state
interest. In addition, both political and administrative leaders should become
more responsive and pragmatic to the building of effective bureaucracy in Ebonyi
State Local Government System.
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 Local Government officials are
known to aid and albeit corruption. Several cases has been recorded where officials
conspire and embezzle millions of Local Government of unspent budgetary
allocation of a department or commission. Bureaucrats found indulging in any
form of corrupt practices should always be severely dealt with to serve as a
deterrent to others.
7.
Ebonyi State Local Government
System 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 (Local Government) 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 Ebonyi State, there is a personal quality to the Local
Government Service. If you know somebody working in a Local Government
department, 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?).
References
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.
Albers,
Henry H. (1974) Principle of Management: A modern Approach, 4th Ed.
New York; John Wiley and Sons.
Beetham, David. Bureaucracy.
Books.google.com. Retrieved 2014-05-02.
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.
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.
How to bend the rules of
corporate bureaucracy". Usatoday30.usatoday.com. 2002-11-08. Retrieved
2013-05-26.
"Jack Welch's Encore".
Businessweek.com. June 14, 1997. Retrieved 2010-07-12.
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.
Karl Marx (1970). "3A".
Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843). Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
Karl Marx: Hal Draper, Karl Marx's Theory of
Revolution, Volume 1: State and Bureaucracy. New York: Monthly Review Press,
1979.
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.
McFarland Donald (1979).
Management Fundamentals and Practice 5th Ed. New York; Macmillian
Publishing Co. Inc.
Michael Voslensky (1984).
Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (1st edition ed.). Doubleday. ISBN
0-385-17657-0.
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.
Ronald Reagan (27 October 1964).
"A Time For Choosing". (Speech)Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
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.
Still a bureaucracy: Normal
paperwork continues its flow at Vatican. Americancatholic.org. Retrieved 26 May
2013.
Transformation,
Abuja: Federal Ministry of Information
"Viewpoints: How did
Margaret Thatcher change Britain?". BBC News. 13 April 2013.
Weber,
M. (1964); The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. New York: The Free
Press.
Woodrow Wilson, "The Study of
Administration", Political Science Quarterly, July 1887
Wren, Daniel & Bedeian,
Arthur (2009). "Chapter 10:The Emergence of the Management Process and
Organization Theory". The Evolution of Management Thought.