Role in the Transition to Democracy

The wave of democratization that swept southern Europe, Latin America, and Eastern Europe in the mid-1970s and in the late 1980s brought to the fore the relationship between bureaucracy and democracy. In the democracies that have emerged in the last quarter of the twentieth century, the civil service may be far from responsive, reliable, and responsible. A civil service may be far from responsive, reliable, and responsible. A civil service that has been associated with an authoritarian regime can easily be considered illegitimate after the transition to democracy takes place. To prove it legitimate, the civil service must submit to the leadership of new democratic governments. Such governments often begin their terms in office by "cleansing" the ranks of the civil service of authoritarian elements. Thus the civil service of authoritarian elements. Thus the civil service in a new democracy is vulnerable, more so if it has traditionally proved to be inefficient.

Nevertheless, new democracies put a difficult double task to their civil service: to remain weak and pose no threat to democratic government and, simultaneously, to help legitimate the democratic regime by improving its economic performance over that of the previous, authoatarian regime. The evaluation of the performance of the civil service in a new democracy is based in a trade-off between these two demands.

In fact, additional conflicting pressures may be exerted on the civil service of a new democracy. The democratic state needs a civil service that is to a certain extent resistant to all governments in order to safeguard the well being, the security, and the defense if the people living within its territorial boundaries. This demand of the people living within its territorial boundaries. This demand clashes with drive of the government party (or coalition of parties) to use the capacities of the civil service freely to fulfill their election promises. For instance, nationalist governments may want to expand the state freely to fulfill their election promises. For instance, nationalist governments may want to expand the state beyond its boundaries, socialist ones to reform it, neoliberal ones to reduce its economic functions to a minimum. Political parties that govern in new democracies may use the civil service for any of these purposes, depending on their profile and the constraints they face once in power.
The removal of elements of the previous authoritarian regime from political institutions is part of the tradition to democracy, and its extent is heavily debated in young democracies. Still, if the democratic government dominates political institutions, like the legislature and the judiciary, and also permeates the civil service, democracy suffers from the reduction of multiple centers of power into a single one-that is, the governing elite. If, as is often the case after the new democracy is even more concentrated. Chances are that the civil service will become responsive only to the needs of the leadership of the governing party. Democratic consolidation, which followed the initial transition to democracy, leaves muchn to be desired in such circumstances.

Yet the permeation of the civil service by the governing Democratic Party (or coalition of parties) does not necessarily undermine the legitimacy or post authoritarian democracy. In post authoritarian democracies, civil servants cannot be fired all at once, even if they have been politically socialized to serve authoritarian governments. The recruitment of new civil service personnel, with records of resistance against the depend dictatorship, may serve as an injection of democratic legitimacy into a suspect body of civil servants. Otherwise, the existence of an intact civil service that is known to have collaborated with nondemocratic rulers may compromise any efforts to deepen and expand democracy. It should be kept in mind, however, that the deepening and expansion of democracy is often pursed by political elated only to extent that they can control the outcome of opening up institutions, such as the civil service, to democratic participation from below.
In the early phases of the transition to and consolidation of democracy, a state needs a strong government aided by a competent civil service for a number of reasons. During that time a competent civil service is instrumental in keeping at bay military and security forces and countering pockets of supporters of authoritarian rule in other institutions. Moreover, rarely do new democracies emerge amidst economic prosperity. New democratic governments often must grapple with economic stagnation or decline as they strive to consolidate democratic rule. Again, an efficient civil service may play a strategic role in economic recovery and thus contribute indirectly to the legitimating of the democratic regime.

In conclusion, a civil service, which in a new, unstable democracy must be weak in the face of alternating democratic governments and strong in the face of undemocratic challenges and economic adversity, feels strongly the difficulties of democratic consolidation. A young democracy that counts on competing democratic parties to consolidate life disagreeable and resort to the civil service as a pillar of democratic stability. The quest for democracy involves, among other things, striking a delicate balance between the elected government and the civil service.

Change and Reform

The tasks of civil service have changed over the past two centuries, adapting to the changing role of the state in the economy and society. In the beginning of the modern era the role of the state was limited to waging wars and collecting taxes. Gradually, the state took up more functions, such as monitoring the national economy and providing welfare services. The expansion of state activity led to the growth and differentiation of the civil service. For some time now, particularly in developed societies of the poet-World War II era, central government institutions have felt the need for more and increasingly specialized civil servants to deal with increasingly complicated problems that require expert knowledge and technology.

IN some developing and underdeveloped societies, however, the growth of the civil service was not commensurate with need to adapt to economic development and the complexity of available technology. Instead, expansions in the civil service were motivated by the need to absurd excess labor from among internal migrants, the young, and the unemployed and to preserve the leverage exercised by political elites through patronage. The more visible presence of the state in the economy and society then gave rise to demands for new and better service by the state. The new demands on the state were nourished by the labor struggles and the wider participation of the working class in the democratic politics of Western Europe and North America.

Recent debates on the socioeconomic role of the state concern not only the extent of its intervention but also the efficiency with which political and civil service elites steer the economy in an antagonistic international environment and the quality of the services offered by civil servants to the citizens. Whereas some earlier transformations of the civil service were prompted by changes in the relations between state and society, some recent changes can be increased efficiency and imposed services.

The call for greater efficiency has often meant that the size of the civil service is trimmed, as governments-particularly in Europe-privatize services previously offered by large state monopolies (for example, national airlines and telephone companies). Alternatively, contemporary governments seek to modernize the organize the organization and methods of public administration. Such modernization involves training civil servants in new technologies, especially the use of computers, and teaching new skills related to better planning and evaluation of civil service activities. Governments have resounded to the demand for higher quality service by attempting to change the attitude prevailing in the civil service from inertia and aloofness to flexibility, attention to quality work, and sensitivity to the needs of citizens. They are also attempting to inform citizens about the services to which they are entitled.

The System of Positions

The system of positions is an alternative to the career system, but it sometimes applied along with it. In the position system the needs of ministries and public agencies for new personnel are registered. Job openings are outlined, with descriptions of the duties and qualifications of each position. Public employees are hired on a limited contract; when their contract expires, they may be rehired or let go.

The civil servant in the position system does not have the special relationship with the states that the career civil servant does. Although the uncertainty of employment and advancement may be drawback for the position system, there are advantages. The position system is superior to the career system in that recruited employees have specialized skills, and the government enjoys flexibility in hiring similar to that of private enterprises (which hire by position). In the position system, civil servants are recruited not to begin a career period of time, under a contract comparable to those in the private sector. The position system is found into eh United States and, in a particular sense, was used in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

A strong anti-elite sentiment has permeated the organization of the civil service in the United States almost from the country's beginning. In the nineteenth century the American federal bureaucracy was highly politicized: civil service positions were handed out in exchange for political support, an allocation system known as the "spoils system". The abolition of the spoils system was accomplished gradually, beginning with the Pendleton Act of 1883.

In the United States today, job openings are announced in conjunction with job descriptions. Applicants pass through a selection process, based on merit; successful candidates are offered a contract that binds the administration to keep the employee in the same position. The employee may be transferred to other posts after the contract expires. Top positions are also open to competition, but in the late 1970s there was an effort to creator administrative elite, the Senior Executive Service, which included approximately the 6000 highest officials into eh civil service. Still, incoming presidents of the United States layers of the federal administration with temporary advisers. Some degree of politicization characterizes state and local-level administrations as well.

In Canada civil servants are appointed on the basis of merit; they are selected from an inventory of candidates who have successfully passed examinations and interviews in career areas of their choice. Having entered the civil service, Canadians may develop their career through promotion and transfer among several dozen of departments and agencies. Recruitment to new positions is accomplished through competitions, first within public service and then outside public service.

Compared with the career system, the system of positions, as applied in Canada and the United States, allows for more personnel mobility and perhaps a better match of person to task. Yet the position system offers less prestige for the high and middle ranks of the civil service and is vulnerable to wider politicization of the top echelons of the bureaucracy.
With significant variations the system of positions was also applied in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union under communism. Officially, employment in the communist public administration did not entail a special labor relationship, like the relationship, like the relationship between the civil servant and the state in the West.

In the Society Union, in particular, civil servants did not formally enjoy the guarantee of tenure or the prospect of a career in the administration. Once hired, civil servants could be fired or transferred, but in practice they occupied the same position for long periods of time. The content and development of a civil servants job was not specified in advance, but civil servants who showed competence and loyalty to the Communist Party were compensated with higher-ranking positions. On the whole, because of their access to better goods and services, Soviet civil servants enjoyed higher living standards than the majority of the population, and top bureaucrats had considerable privilege

The Career System

The career system is influenced by the intellectual tradition of German idealism and the concept of the state of the philosopher G.W.F.Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel declared that universal standards should apply to the selection, training, and promotion of civil servants. Appointments to state jobs should be made only on the basis of the objective evaluation of the candidates' knowledge and ability.

In the German idealist tradition the state is conceived as separate from society, which it overseas with the aims of protecting the general interest against individual interests. The theoretical separating if state and society is complemented by the division of tasks between governments, cutes them. The career system, by establishing a lifelong professional relationship between the civil servant and the state, and by subordinating the civil servant to legitimate political authorities, satisfies the mission of the Hegelian state to function as an ideal, impartial arbiter of conflicting societal interests. The civil servant does not have the same status as employees in the private sector but has a special relation to the state, which brings additional duties and fewer freedoms, such as the duty of subordination to the political will of the government and, commonly, limitations on the freedom to strike. The additional burden of obligations imposed on civil servants in theoretically, at least- balanced by increased job security and a respectable salary.

The career system is applied in the public administrations of most Western European states (including France and the United Kingdom) and many postcolonial, independent civil servants are recruited on the basis of examinations of hiring graduates of Oxford and Cambridge Universities with nontechnical education; they reach the top echelons of civil service through a "fast stream" of promotions. Civil servants generally advance in their careers by acquiring experience on the job.

The British career system was solidified after the Northolt-Trevelyan report of 1854, which helped to extinguish the particularize and clienteles that had been evident in the British administration. Later, the British civil service developed into a polymorphous and fragmented set of bodies of civil servants, known as classes. The Fulton report, published in 1968, contributed to the reshaping of the career system by recommending a decrease in the number of classes, a wider pool of candidates for the top positions in the civil service hierarchy, and more specialized in-service training through the establishment of the Civil Service College. However, despite the Fulton committee recommendations, the British civil service was not thoroughly reformed; it remained deficient in openness and accountability.

In France civil servants are also recruited on the basis of examinations. Prospective high level civil servants are trained in an elite school, the Cole National d'Administration. The school, founded in 1945, administers highly competitive entrance examinations, offers coerces leading to specialization, and ranks the members of the graduating class. Under the ranking system civil servants are assigned to different grinds corps and to the levels of positions they will occupy in the bureaucracy. Differentiation along the grade scale provides for greater mobility of civil servants in the hierarchy of positions.

In Germany civil servants are recruited on the basis of competition; initially, they are appointed for a probationary stage, they become career civil servants. Depending on their formal qualifications and the type of job, civil servants are classified into several categories, forming a hierarchy. There is a long tradition of legal education among German civil servants. Not all public employees have the same legal status: the German state has a federal structure, and the competent states (Lander) hire some employees on a contract basis. Civil servants have a special relationship to the state, regulated by provisions of the public interest.

Patterns of Organization

The organization of the civil service involves the recruitment, training, promotion, and transfer of civil servants. Basically, there are two paths along which civil services of the contemporary world are structured: the career system and the system of positions.

In the career system, employees are recruited to the civil service through competitive entrance examinations. Once accepted in the civil service, new employees enjoy tenure. After an initial probationary stage, they expect to pass the whole of their professional life in the bureaucracy, more often than not in particular sector of the bureaucracy where they began. In some cases, they are trained in schools set up to prepare the newly recruited in service training in new fields of interest, such as modern public management, public finance, and computers.

In service training is usually a prerequisite for the advancement of civil servants. The career ladder is a grade scale, consisting of several categories with different entry levels depending on educational credentials. The career path up this grade scale is closely linked to, but not identical with, promotion in the hierarchy of supervising positions - typically, head of bureau, head of section, and head of division of a ministry (or "department" in the United States, "Office" in the United Kingdom).

In the career system, civil servants who have comparable formal qualifications and specialties form homogeneous groups or bodies-known as grinds crops in finance may populate as a group the often powerful ministry of financialization. Fr example, specialists in public finance may populate as a group the often powerful ministry of finance, these groups are officially recognized by law, and, in practice, they limit the freedom of the political masters of the civil service (that is, the elected governments) to transfer civil servants from one domain puff public administration to another. The crops or cores, which consist of high-ranking employees, enjoy prestige, constitute the informal networks inside the bureaucracy, and usually compete among themselves and with political appointees and cabinet ministries for power in the bureaucracy. The phenomenon has led to strife and fragmentation in some civil services.

Role of the Civil Service in Democracy

The role of civil servants in democracy is a long debated question, which was lucidly considered by Weber in his discussion of the bureaucratization of the contemporary state. On the one hand, Weber perceived bureaucracy as a correlate of democracy in the sense that the existence of a civil service, staffed on the basis of merit, contributes to the day-to-day contact between citizens and the bureaucracy. More specifically, the selection and promotion of civil servants according to achievement criteria is a guarantee of the application of universal criteria in the distribution of goods and services by the state to its citizen.

On the other hand, the executive of laws, typically formulated by the government and passed by the legislature in modern democracies, is left to the civil servants. These individuals' interests, related to their personal, ideological, and corporate biases, may find their way into the implementation of the policies of the political elites that have won the confidence of the electorate. In other words, the strategic position of civil servants in democratic political strategic position of the civil servants in democratic political systems, and the leeway they enjoy in the interpretation of systems, and the leeway they enjoy in the integration of laws - particularly in the Nobel situations or when there are conflicts of interest - may allow them to deflect the import of policies initiated by legitimate governments. In short, politicians can carry out the will of electorate only with the help of the civil service, who are not periodically evaluated by the electorate as politicians are, may be able to circumscribe the options of the electorate.

The civil service, then, can be perceived as a potential threat to democracy. The sources of the threat can be found in the growing size of the modern state, the accelerating intervention of government in the economy, and the secrecy and increasing technically of state activities, which together may remove bureaucratic activities from the reach of democratic control. In particular, the growth of bureaucracy, evident in the rise of the numbers of civil servants over time, has long and judicially been considered a factor that can lead a time, has long and justifiably been considered a factor that can lead to a replace to nondemocratic government. The legislature and the judiciary, let along individual citizens, have difficulties monitoring decisions made in the silent corridors of the civil service.

A relevant questions concerns the extent to which the civil service is responsive, reliable, and responsible, as part of the executive branch of government in a democratic regime. A responsive civil service caters more to the needs of the citizens than to its own tendencies to reproduce and grow. A responsive civil service caters more to the needs of the citizens than to its own tendencies to reproduce and grow. A reliable civil service delivers services that measure up to the standards of international economic competition and diplomacy and to the expectations of the democratic government in power as to the thorough implementation of its policies. A responsible civil service is held accountable by the majority of the electorate through the exercise of the right to vote and other forms of political participation. Furthermore, a responsible civil service refrains from discriminating against the parliamentary minority and against social groups who traditionally possess fewer resources, such as social status (racial or ethnic minorities) or political pull (women or the poor), than others.