Public Administration and the Tyranny of Bureaucracy
Public administration has recently been designed in a way where certain activities are implemented without considering the plight of the citizens. The problem in public administration in the American society falls on the people in the civil service who in most cases enjoy the security of tenure. With increasing impunity, arrogance towards the difficulties of the normal citizens, experts coined the term 'Tyranny of the bureaucracy.' Semantically, 'Tyranny of bureaucracy' denotes some context of bullishness. The word tyranny refers to a situation where someone enjoys particular privileges because of certain situations that favor him or her. On the other hand, bureaucracy involves the unnecessary regulations that promote certain static situation regardless of the context. In the American setting, 'Tyranny of bureaucracy' is epitomized through the numerous actions taken by various agencies. Executive orders and administrative officers further reinforce the decisions made by these agencies.
The American Society and Agencies of the Executive Branch
The American society has been held hostage by various agencies of the executive branch. Issues relating to environmental regulation among others have made the executive to create many institutions that are meant to implement certain policies. At the moment, some of the notable agencies include the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Forest Service (Scarlett & Boyd, 2015). Considerably, the mandate of these institutions is to ensure that there is sustainability in the use of natural resources in America. With the emerging environmental challenges, most governments have also created agencies like America. One of the characteristics of such institutions is that they focus on implementing any executive orders. An executive order is an aspect that surpasses any form of public interrogations.
The Devoid of Public Opinion: A Case of Tyranny of Bureaucracy
What this means is that the actions taken by these agencies are devoid of public opinion regardless of the conditions in which they are being implemented. Considerably, this is a case of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy.' When an agency's actions are not subjected to people's opinion, then this implies that such an institution is anchored on tyranny. Next, when situations such as executive orders protect an agency, then that is bureaucracy. Therefore, with the presence of institutions such as EPA, BLM, and the US Forest Service, American people operate under a 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy.' Although this is not openly discussed, many of the cases involving EPA, BLM, and the US Forest Service have demonstrated that these institutions promote the concept of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy.' For instance, BLM has in the past concentrated on fighting ranchers, and an example includes cases such as those of the 'Wayne Hage Family Farm' (Lofthouse, 2016). Another case involves EPA's intention to garnish taxpayers' wages without obtaining a court order (Lofthouse, 2016). Evidently, these examples demonstrate the arrogance and bureaucratic approaches used by federal agencies.
The Need for Public Participation and Solutions
The above examples and many others demonstrate how Americans suffer because of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy.' It is wrong for agencies such as BLM, EPA, and the US Forest Service to enjoy the power that cannot be subjected to public opinion. The American Constitution recognizes the need to protect the rights of citizens. However, the use of executive orders by these agencies appears to violate what the Constitution promotes. Although some of the cases that BLM, EPA, and the Forest Service deal with are ideal for protecting the environment, there is the need for public participation. It is inappropriate for BLM and others to stop ranchers from practicing their tradition without creating proper transitional structures. When agencies develop random measures that are supported by executive orders, this demonstrates a case of intolerance. With public participation, the agencies can create amicable solutions that address the concerns of the environment and that of the public. However, when they appear to implement unilateral decisions forcefully, then is a case of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy.'
The Role of the Executive Branch and the Separation of Powers
The executive branch controls most of these agencies. One of the solutions to cases such as 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy' is the use of separation of powers (Karl, 2018). The executive branch of the government should not use agencies such as EPA. Already, the executive can give orders. Therefore, when the executive micromanages EPA and others then cases of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy' emerge. Considerably, the executive enjoys some immunity, and as such with the mandate that EPA and BLM have to enforce, the officers of these agencies are likely to mistreat the public as espoused in the concept of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy.' Therefore, to avoid the practice of 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy,' it is important to dissociate some of these agencies from the executive.
Protection of Public Welfare and Accountability
When 'Tyranny of Bureaucracy' is not handled among the agencies in America, it could be used for personal interests. Some civil servants and have personal interests in resources such as land, and as such, they could use these agencies to pursue their needs. For sensitive institutions such as EPA to work under the whims of executive orders, it is very dangerous for the public. Agencies should be answerable to the public. With such a situation, it will ensure that the policies implemented by these agencies consider the welfare of the citizens also.
References
Karl, B. D. (2018). The American bureaucrat: A history of a sheep in wolves' clothing. In Democracy, Bureaucracy, And The Study Of Administration (pp. 14-31). Routledge.
Lofthouse, J. K. (2016). How good intentions backfire: Failures and negative consequences of federal environmental policies. Utah State University.
Scarlett, L., & Boyd, J. (2015). Ecosystem services and resource management: institutional issues, challenges, and opportunities in the public sector. Ecological Economics, 115, 3-10.
