Death to the Bureaucrats?

Can an ideally institutionalized, rational bureaucracy be destroyed?

Although the initial assumption is no--because by its very nature, a properly insulated bureaucracy should be able to withstand political assaults on its integrity and attempts to capture its lever-wielding echelons--there have been moments when state bureaucracies "went away".

In 1960s Cuba, the shift to state socialism suddenly multiplied and imbued greater power in public administrators. This led them to begin to function politically like a stratified economic class--acting not as impartial bureaucrats, but in ways that protected their own interests. So no sooner had the bourgeoisie been done away with, but a bureaucratic class formed asserting its special rights.

This bureaucratic class quickly became a political target for politicians operating on behalf of the working class. Castro and Che et al sent bureaucrats into rural areas to cut sugar cane--thereby leveling again the social landscape. This was possible because the bureaucracy was not invulnerably isolated by a notion of legalistic authority; ultimately it answered to Castro's charismatic authority.

Another example of a decimated bureaucracy is found in Venezuela circa 2000. But this time the destroyers of the bureaucracy were the bureaucrats themselves.

In the later half of the 20th century, civil servants were gradually installed in the state bureaucracy due to (and reinforcing of) allegiance to either Acción Democrática or COPEI, the two main political parties in Venezuela's 4th Republic "partidocracia" (limited competition--like in the US).

Once Chavez won power and began to roll out socialist reforms that threatened the higher class position with whcih the bureaucrats identified, they began to opt out of working for the state. This was a political statement--akin to "exit" among Hirschman's three options when facing an uncomfortable situation.

Once Chavez filled the empty bureaucracy with inexperienced loyalists, it took time for efficient administration of the socialistic agenda to come online. There was a lagged learning curve that gave detractors ample opportunity to claim an inefficient squandering of oil wealth.

Now that the bureaucracy is filled with functioning loyalists, we see a similar situation as occurred in Cuba: the formation of a bureaucratic class. In fact, as it becomes a class of its own, the quality of its members' loyalty to the participatory goals of the Bolivarian revolution gets called into question.

It is figured that the Chavez-backed referendum last year failed because of abstention from millions of official party members. These so-called chavistas may have frowned upon the decentralizing measures included in the referendum that would have curtailed the centralized power they held as "state administrators". Now we see warnings that Venezuelan bureaucrats limit their decadence.

The similarities between 1966 Cuba and 2008 Venezuela are striking.

Classical Sociology Told You So

or

Anomie Goes to Wall Street (and Beyond)

Reacting to impending economic doom, France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy--formerly an unabashed free trader--has begun to sound a lot like his erstwhile compatriot, Monsieur Durkheim.

First, at the UN on Tuesday, he told the world:

[English translations in comments section]

"On ne peut pas attendre pour préparer le monde de l’après-pétrole, pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique, pour sauver les océans, pour en finir avec les dumpings monétaires, sociaux, écologiques. On ne peut pas attendre pour moraliser le capitalisme financier."

Then Thursday, in a major domestic economic address à la Bush, he affirmed:

"ce système a creusé les inégalités, il a démoralisé les classes moyennes"

and

"Le capitalisme c’est la propriété privée, la responsabilité individuelle, l’engagement personnel, c’est une éthique, une morale, des institutions."

and

"Si l’on veut reconstruire un système financier viable, la moralisation du capitalisme financier demeure la priorité."

and

"Voilà quelques principes simples qui relèvent du bon sens et de la morale élémentaire sur lesquels je ne céderai pas."

Clearly, Sarkozy views--or at least describes--the contemporary crisis in Durkheimian terms of a moral deficit; that the system has failed because no morality was governing it.

He went into a refrain stark in its declarative finality:

"L’autorégulation pour régler tous les problèmes, c’est fini. Le laissez-faire, c’est fini. Le marché qui a toujours raison, c’est fini."

But even though with these statements he seemed to condemn unequivocally the basic logic of the free market, Sarkozy still managed to let capitalism off the hook.

"La crise financière n’est pas la crise du capitalisme. C’est la crise d’un système qui s’estéloigné des valeurs les plus fondamentales du capitalisme, qui a trahi l’esprit du capitalisme."

In the end, Sarkozy blames the present state of ruinous affairs not on capitalism itself, but on the lack of morality imbued in the system. He says that this unregulated, amoral financial anarchy betrayed "the spirit of capitalism".

Which, fittingly, brings us to Max Weber.

Don't ever say classical sociology didn't tell you so.

Sociopolitical Studies Gauge Public Opinion

The Cuban Communist Party has a think tank that studies "the impact of the Revolution's programs on the population, the political and ideological work, and society's sociopolitical climate."

Talks given at a recent conference stressed the importance of the Cuban Communist Party staying totally informed about public opinion and feelings in the street. They say this allows them "to make adequate decisions" and to take proper action.

Much of these studies are performed at the local level, though there are also "macrosocial" studies.

This seems like a form of democracy. Political leaders measure public opinion, then adopt policies that address the expressed challenges and grievances. Very similar to US politicians letting polls shape their political paths.