The Permanent State vs. Democratic Government

by Will Wilkinson on March 3, 2009

This WSJ piece nicely illustrates the difference between the permanent apparatus of the state and the impermanent apparatus of elected government. It also illustrates nicely the problem of legitimacy in the context of a large state. The legitimacy of government coercion and redistribution, according to most contemporary liberal theorists, flows from decisions having passed through fair democratic procedures. But much de facto government comes from the unelected state, even under normal conditions. 

Much of the planning required to give out the funds is being done by career bureaucrats, because top political appointees at many agencies have yet to be nominated, much less confirmed.

At the Interior Department, an eight-person task force is mostly made up of career employees who have been named acting bureau chiefs.

Longtime employees also have been running the show at the Commerce Department, which remains without a secretary after the Obama administration’s first two candidates dropped out, and the third, former Washington Gov. Gary Locke, awaits confirmation. It took a week for the agency to provide any information about its stimulus plans. The agency has almost $8 billion to give out, including $3.9 billion for broadband grants.

All the so-called liberal democracies have a permanent civil service or bureacracy. I don’t see how they could function without them. But I also don’t understand how this fits into contemporary liberal accounts of the democratic legitimacy. Is this a problem?

[Note: Just in case... let me say that is a post about political theory, not anything about the Obama government in particular.]

  • Jurgen Habermas spends a lot of time thinking about this problem in Between Facts and Norms, though I don't know if you consider Habermas a liberal political theorist.
  • The time to plan and debate is now. This is a test of our adulthood as a democracy. Washington, as long as our Chinese lenders enable it, can practice denial for a while longer. But for states the real world is about to arrive.
  • mk
    This is brilliant spam.
  • Another systemic problem.

    Systemic failure is looking more and more likely for democracy. The only way democracy works is having solid leaders every so often who ignore the wants and whims 'of the people' and do what is right.

    "Oh, you want free healthcare? Well isn't that special? I want it to rain candy too. How would you feel about being treated by a doctor whose salary was capped at 30k for the greater good? No, you wanted to be treated by someone who is paid well for their talents? Then no free healthcare, moron."
  • Even if civil servants do agree to carry out explicit orders from their elected leaders, they still have vastly more influence than contemporary accounts of democratic theory assigns to them.
  • The time to plan and debate is now. This is a test of our adulthood as a democracy. Washington, as long as our Chinese lenders enable it, can practice denial for a while longer. But for states the real world is about to arrive.

    korean fashion wholesale
  • Jeff Graver
    "Is this a problem?" A really interesting question, to which I think the answer is "no", unless you constrain "liberal accounts" strictly to "consent of the governed", as Paul seems to suggest doing.

    If we think of the elected/appointed as a "liberal" force, then we can think of the civil service as a "conservative" force (small 'c' - not talking about GOP here). It's basic tendency is to keep things running smoothly, as much like they are alreday doing as possible.

    As with so many other facets of American gov't, redemption comes in the friction between the two. They work, not in harmony, but in discord, and maintain (we hope) legitimacy between the two.

    Not sure if that's coherent, but lunch calls.
  • Paul G. Brown
    A bit before your time, Will - but might I recommend "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister"? These were BBC sitcoms from the 1980s which brilliantly expresses the attitudes of the permanent bureaucracy and their political masters.
  • Jon
    I was a civil servant, albeit in a Westminster system. The permanent bureaucracy is basically a force for inertia. Lots of formality and rules ensure that money is spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated, citizens are treated the same way and in accordance with legislation, and political neutrality (the ability to work with whichever party happens to be in government) is preserved. They are terrified of causing political embarassment (in the US cabinet secretaries do not have to stand up in Parliament every week and answer for their agencies' cock-ups, so maybe things are different there), and changing personnel is hard. This leaves very limited latitude to do things that elected officials (or courts) have not directed, or to innovate. Most of the time in my experience the civil service is not trying to push an independent ideological agenda.

    Of course, every adminstration inherits a huge number of programs that they can't just stop. The scope and scale of a large agency's activities can be mind-boggling and, often by design, hard to change. When mistakes (inevitably) occur new policies, laws and executive orders are issued to ensure that the bureacracy does what politicians want in the way they want. These just accumulate, which can make the system unresponsive and inefficient.

    Given the huge size and myriad functions of government I would say you have a choice between a responsive, agile system and one that remains scrupulously within the mandates established by elected officials. All real democracies choose the latter. In the abstract the public might want more responsive, activist government, but everytime a screw-up happens everyone says 'This must never be allowed to happen again' and make more rules for the bureacracy to comply with.

    So a big public sector bureaucracy isn't really a problem for legitimacy, unless you expect it to act both quickly and efficaciously - then you can really get into trouble.
  • JB
    Another systemic problem.

    Systemic failure is looking more and more likely for democracy. The only way democracy works is having solid leaders every so often who ignore the wants and whims 'of the people' and do what is right.

    "Oh, you want free healthcare? Well isn't that special? I want it to rain candy too. How would you feel about being treated by a doctor whose salary was capped at 30k for the greater good? No, you wanted to be treated by someone who is paid well for their talents? Then no free healthcare, moron."
  • Xavier
    Jurgen Habermas spends a lot of time thinking about this problem in Between Facts and Norms, though I don't know if you consider Habermas a liberal political theorist.
  • Dave
    I've been thinking about this kind of thing myself lately. Paul's comment reminds me of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" (all systems go toward oligarchy because of the need to have relatively small leadership committees to govern anything). And I agree with everything you said.

    I think this is a big problem for the legitimacy of democracy, at least for anyone that thinks legitimacy can only come from the consent of the governed. When I have asked people of the liberal persuasion about this in the past, their standard answer seems to rely on procedure. That is, government derives its legitimacy from the fact that both kinds of government jobs are gotten via a "fair" procedure--anyone can try to be elected or apply for a civil service job. This doesn't make sense to me at all as a moral argument, but I'm not sure it's entirely invalid.

    Paul's last point is fascinating: the idea that the less legitimate part of government governs better. I don't understand the implications yet.
  • Paul G. Brown
    Can you name me one civilization, EVER, that didn't have 'a permanent civil service or bureaucracy.'? Hell - businesses are bureaucracies.

    As soon as there were more than 7 mud huts, someone needed to keep track of who's turn it is to empty the latrines this week. In modern administration there's a mountain of technical minutiae that must be climbed, and--absent some actual evidence to the contrary--it seems reasonable to assume that careerists are the best people to do it.

    Besides - as recent history would seem to suggest (*cough* Justice Department *cough* NASA *cough* FEMA) it's often the political appointees who really screw things up, and then manage to escape responsibility.
  • david
    Even if civil servants do agree to carry out explicit orders from their elected leaders, they still have vastly more influence than contemporary accounts of democratic theory assigns to them.
  • Are you saying any of these permanent civil service would refuse to carry out an order from their political masters?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: