‘Enemy of the State’ (Bureaucracy) –Part 03

- The process of the “Internal Disciplinary Inquiry” and “Development” Ideology

Links : Part One | Part Two

By Citizen-Ordinary

“The Internal Inquiry”: An interpretation of the Establishment’s Perspective

(July 24, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Why would senior administrators who are the best products of our system, spend their valuable time and energy, all the man/woman hours spent, attending to what otherwise would be considered detailed, mundane affairs in trying to punish a few people? I would suggest that it is because attending to these must have an enormous significance for them. All this is done in the name of a worthy cause from their own perspective to which they have committed themselves.

An apparent explanation here would be that those administrators who use the “IDI” to eliminate those whom they consider as “trouble makers” must believe that they exemplify what Weber describes as the characteristics of ideal typical bureaucracy, and not the model of a degenerate bureaucracy.

They perceive themselves as great defenders of the integrity of the administrative service from “trouble makers” who dare to defy their authority unlike those juniors in the administrative service who unquestioningly respect their authority. They are using the rule book, E-code, here to impose the disciplinary authority of the senior bureaucracy on its employees to make the establishment efficient.

They would find nothing untoward in any of the happenings described above, except that they would believe they are quite justified and within the authority assigned to them by the E-Code for maintaining discipline and order within an Establishment. The senior administrators through their own informal investigation and information gathering (listening to tales being a major means of such information gathering among administrators some of them publicly stating so, if not encouraging it openly by rewarding those whom carry tales to them), “know who” are the “trouble makers” and “what they did” but the proving of this has to be shown to be legally done and therefore requires all the footwork necessary for building a case, which cannot be done in an open and fair manner. It is like those police officers who complain that if they are to respect human rights then they would not be able to control crime. Similarly, the argument would go that if senior administrators are to respect transparency they will not be able to weed out the “trouble makers” and “clean” the state sector.

‘Goal Rationality’ and ‘Value Rationality’

It may appear at a first glance that these administrators exemplify what Weber called ‘goal rationality,’ in contrast to what he identified as ‘value rationality.’ However, I would like to suggest here that it would be too mechanical to identify them as having no sense of ‘value rationality.’

‘Goal-rationality’ refers to effectiveness, economic efficiency from the actor's point of view, in serving one's goals whatever they may be, using the means at one’s disposal. Here, the goals are taken as given and they justify the means. In the process the use of anything or any course of action as means can be justified.

Here, in their action they are being guided by ‘the means-ends rationality,’ that is, the belief that ‘end justifies the means,’ the end here being the “efficiency” of the organization as seen from the perspective of the bureaucratic authority, the Nazi 'final solution' being a classic example of goal rationality at its height.

Goal rationality does not take into account that what are considered goals can be values and therefore need to be evaluated in relation to their value to overall objectives of the organization as a whole, in relation to their value to larger society within which organizations are located, and more importantly in themselves as values.

Therefore, while shrewdly manipulating the law, or the rules governing an organization to one’s advantage in setting up and conducting an “IDI” by covering the tracks with apparent legalities and approval of the authorities thus giving one’s action a semblance of legality may be an effective means of furthering the goals of the administrators, it nevertheless may amount to a violation of a moral value.

In the case of the “internal inquiry,” manipulating the law or the rules would be an effective means of furthering one's goals, but it may violate the moral value of being fair and just which is not a mere means to some other goal, but a 'value' in its own.

This is to say that 'value-rationality', takes into account the rationality of goals themselves not merely as means to some ulterior goal and thus evaluates actions in their relation to some value other than as mere means.

In other words, if the administrators, in the eyes of the Non-Establishment perspective, break the law and rules in trying to “protect the law” it will undermine the moral basis of the very organization the administrators are trying to protect.

However, in my view, to portray these administrators as having no sense of value would be to consider them as dehumanised robots in terms of what Weber called the calculating rational character of the modern bureaucracy that refuses to entertain any human elements which escape calculation.

I believe that the senior administrators whom we are discussing do not mechanically follow the rule book to attain a mere sense of technical efficiency. These are people who, I am sure, believe that they are guided by a strong sense of values in their everyday lives. Neither as family members in their private lives, nor as members of society in friendship or in association with others, they can be guided by purely instrumental goals, totally lacking in values such as love, compassion, sympathy, empathy etc.

This to say that in Weberian terms they must be guided by a sense of value rationality of their own. Hence, in order to understand their thinking in relation to the “IDI” we need to understand the values that guide these senior administrators in their work life.

The Bureaucracy: “the Elite Masters Guiding the Destiny of the Nation”

I would like to suggest that the key value that guides these senior administrators is, in their own perspective, that they are the elite who have become masters guiding the destiny of the nation. (While, that this notion of bureaucrats being the ‘masters’ would go against the original idea of bureaucrats being servants of the regime would bring up the issue of the vexed relationship between the bureaucracy and politicians, this is not the occasion to dwell on it. It is sufficient to mention here that members of the state bureaucracy themselves have their political allegiances and whether they act as masters or servants in varying degrees at any given time also may depend on which political regime is in power.)

“Seniors are the guardians of the state”

As seen from the perspective of the administrators, the respect for the authority of seniority must have an interpretation that goes beyond mere self interest. I would like to suggest that the idea that “seniors can do no wrong” which seems to be the motto guiding the administrative service, is based on the belief that ultimately what really matters is the state. Seniors know what is best for the state as they are the guardians of the system. Hence, finally, one has to give into the decisions of the seniors even if one finds the seniors are in fact wrong.

In the training given to the inductees, the newly passed out graduates who have been selected to the service through a competitive examination, a strong sense of being the bearers of a long tradition of administrators who are caretakers of the nation state is instilled. In this sense the administrative service has an almost sacred character attributed to its responsibility. They come to know their seniors as people who are committed to this task with a vision and therefore will not go against the decisions of such seniors, even if in their own conscience participating in such decisions may trouble them. While they may feel sorry for the fate of a few individuals (“trouble makers”) thus affected, what finally matters is the sacred responsibility to preserve the vision of the administrative service as the guardians of the state, at any cost, like the guardians of Plato’s republic.

Administrators want to maintain the hierarchical authority which they consider the key essential factor in running the administration. Accordingly, an organization is run strictly on the basis of giving and following orders where seniors have the final word.

This also explains why, generally, retired senior administrators are appointed to serve as heads of statutory bodies whereas one would expect that these establishments could benefit from younger people who are more up-to-date with the changing trends in the world. The rationale would be that it allows the state sector to continue to have the guidance of seniors experienced in development matters and at the same time allow these seniors to have free access to additional incomes and resources in their retirement to engage in the pursuits they enjoy, such as writing books, preparing their way to join international bodies etc.

The inquiring officers and investigating officers themselves who are perceived by Non-Establishment as serving the interests of the administrators, would, I believe, acknowledge that they are bound by the interest of serving the administrative service, and the state sector by helping to “weed out” the “trouble makers.” In carrying out this activity they would perceive their conduct as being honest and themselves as good people whose conduct is in accord with the beliefs and values they hold as sacred. It is through interrogation that they always construct evidence. Isn’t that how cases are always constructed by the Police? How else they could do that? Would the “culprits” ever admit to their own wrong doing? First, some form of evidence has to be gathered by any possible means. Then the “trouble makers” themselves must be made to appear to have “agreed” with that evidence. Then only a fool proof case can be established. This is how they would view their own behaviour.

If the bureaucracy perceives itself as the guardian elite, how would the so-called trouble makers see themselves within this scheme of things?

In the following final section of this article, I will try develop an argument to show that the administrators and those who are perceived by the administrators as trouble makers both can be located within the notion of development however arriving there from two different perspectives.

To be continued...

-Sri Lanka Guardian