I want to retrace one of the most controversial topics in past public administration debates, and that is the role of public services or the bureaucracy in the rationalization of “administrative evil” as it impacts on citizens of a given country. Let me however begin by explaining administrative evil as largely but not exclusively, lawful, procedural and formal activities of public officials, which never the less creates an environment for dehumanization, exploit, marginalize and in some countries even extermination of some races and tribes. This are activities that are seemingly formal day to day responsibilities of bureaucrats performed under adherence to general laws and formalities as legally stipulated.
Just to provide context, some of the known human race disasters in history are the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany, utilization of slaves, wherever, Genocide in Rwanda, apartheid in South Africa and displacement of the Zimbabweans. All the mentioned and many others are probably the straight forward acts of violation of human rights that we can establish common consensus about.
The often missed point about all these incidents and others is that much as we can point to respective leaders like the Mugabes, Hitlers, Bothas and others, we seldom reflect on the role of the bureaucratic machinery that ruthlessly enforces and provides technical rationality for these acts. I am inclined to argue that beside the above incidents there are some much “masked” activities of the bureaucracy which might appear to be very rational and harmless if not put to closer scrutiny.
These are official functions performed by public officials in their normal functional responsibilities and in the process some of these activities expose citizens to environmental hazards like polluted air, hunger and poverty, and general impediments to accessing government programmes that may be intended to uplift citizen’s living standards. One may argue that these are often very subtle in their long-term effects that we rarely associate these “administrative evil” acts with the end results. Let me point out from the onset that invariably public officials are presumably guided by “scientific-analytical” mindset and technical-rationality approach to dealing with social and political problems bequeathing societies and it is this mindset that is further entrenched by the legal provisions and therefore never really is it ever seen as a possible source for some of the citizens’ miseries. Let’s accept that even in cases where certain decisions and acts are seen as a necessary evil for the general good of communities, it could as well be this masked evil that will eventually create opportunities for further marginalization of some groups within societies.
We have had projects that go through the entire processes of design, approvals and endorsement as required by laws and regulations, whether it be road construction, dam construction and major infrastructural developments across the country, almost all of them have been accompanied by displacement of people in the form of homesteads in villages, lands, cattle-posts and associated livelihoods such as their cattle and other animals. These are done following established government procedures and seemingly accepted by societies, but this to me should not blind us to not further reflecting on the long-term effects of some of these policy decisions, even if performed in the most of bureaucratic efficiency levels available.
Implied in the above assertions are very modest calls for us to further reflect on some of the rational-legal principles guiding policy initiation and execution in our bureaucratic setup and see if there are any long term chances of opening up opportunities for the system to further sustain systematic dehumanization, exploitative and impoverishing exploits. In other words just because we follow the laws, regulations and established procedure in initiating and executing policies is not in itself a justification to ignore what may be long-term negative effects on citizens in their varied groupings and locations. I can hear one say we do Environmental Impact Assessments and associated measures required to undertake projects of defined magnitude! Yes even in those cases, care must be taken to ensure that certain valued traditions, cultures and overall lifestyles of citizens are not compromised to extinction in the long run.
“Administrative evil” suggests that if there ever is potential for these types of decisions to be made, let them be unmasked and not masked. Our modern public service ethics’ conduct is invariably anchored on the supremacy of technical rationality which is used to objectively justify various projects whose value and impact on citizen lives is scientifically analyzed. The very approach used must also help us unmask any possible policy decisions that may turn out to be potential sources of exploitation, inequality, injustice and general human rights violations in the future. I am not going to suggest that this is a simple and inexpensive exercise, for the contrary is in fact true.
I am however going to insinuate that there is value in unmasking some, if not all, of the administrative evil decisions within our bureaucratic setups. These can only add value to our efforts to ensure that our modern management of the entire public service does not overtime become the very machinery that entrenches sustained and systematic, but seemingly legal, rational and procedural, programmes and projects that negatively impact on citizens’ value for life.
A host of policy decisions are taken in the public service around issues of worker safety and their exposure to various types of very health threatening chemicals, and other seemingly very well intended programmes such as drought relief projects, labour intensive works, Tribal Land Grazing Policy, quarrying of various types (sand, types of soils) for construction works and many others performed and undertaken under the most strict procedures in place. All of them have the potential to create an environment that could further increase poverty for some, expose people to lifelong ailments and even deny them opportunities to self sustainability. The challenge is for us to institutionalise the thorough scrutiny of what may seem to be well designed and developed policies and programmes, if only to establish their potential to create and environment for negating the good intentions behind every one of them in the long-term. It’s certainly not considered a very topical issue at the moment but nevertheless, I consider it worthy of reflecting on for the furtherance of our commitment to adding value to citizens’ lives.
