Gerilim ve Uzlaşma: Demokrasi Ekseninde Bürokrasi ve Siyaset İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2011
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bir yönetim tarzı veya felsefesi olarak demokrasi, toplumların yönetilmesinde, toplum içinde yaşayan insanların hak ve özgürlüklerine yaptığı atıflar dolayısıyla uzun yıllardır en önemli siyasal sistemlerden birisi olmuştur. En genel anlamda siyasal iktidarın seçim ile başa geldiği bir yönetim tarzını anlatan ve halkın iktidarı ile eşitlik vurgusu ağır basan demokratik sistemlerin geçmişi oldukça eskilere dayanmaktadır. Şüphesiz bu uzun tarihsel süreç boyunca demokrasi hem teoride hem de pratikte oldukça çeşitlilik göstermiştir. Günümüzde ise neredeyse her türlü siyasal sistemin demokrasi kavramı çerçevesinde ya da ondan referans alınarak tartışıldığı söylenebilir. Bir siyasal sistem olarak demokrasinin uygulanabilirliği noktasında ise devletlerin sahip olduğu bürokratik örgütlenmeler önemli yer tutmaktadır. Teorik olarak, belirli kurallar önünde herkese eşit davranan ve gayrişahsîlik iddiasında olan bürokrasinin güçlü olduğu yönetimlerde demokrasinin daha düzgün işleyeceğine inanılır. Ayrıca seçilenler ve atananlar arasındaki uyum da demokrasiye ulaşmanın temel koşullarından birisi olmaktadır. Ancak pratikte bürokrasi ve siyaset arasındaki ilişkinin uyumdan ziyade çatışmaya daha eğilimli olduğu söylenebilir. Diğer bir taraftan demokrasinin uygulanmasında ön koşullardan birisi olarak görülen bürokrasi belirli durumlarda demokrasi önündeki asıl engel haline gelebilmektedir. Bu çalışma ise genel olarak modern demokrasilerde bürokrasi ve siyaset ilişkisini irdelemeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu bağlamda bürokrasi ve bürokrasiye ilişkin kuramsal yaklaşımlar genel olarak incelendikten sonra bir siyaset yapma biçimi olarak demokrasi ile bürokrasi arasındaki ilişki ve bürokrasinin teşkil ettiği problemler bürokrat ve siyasetçi özelinde analiz edilmeye çalışılacaktır.
The main stress of democracy which is the ideal administrative method of modern societies can briefly be defined as the ruling of those elected by the people under their own will, the equality and equal rights for the citizens. The functioning of democracy is possible with the existence of institutions organized with certain rules. Bureaucracy covers this definition and is the main agent for the execution of democracy in an unproblematic way. Furthermore, bureaucracy which implies a form of organization determined by rules and laws in all levels of the state embodies also structures required by the political organization legally holding the power to rule the people. Thought within this context, the harmonious functioning of the structures created by the elected and the bureaucratic institutions consisting of appointees appears to be a vital necessity for the execution of democracy. However, it is possible to state that these institutions bear some structural and functional problems in practice. In general the term bureaucracy which refers to the execution of procedures and actions, valid in a certain administrative system, by authorized and specialized persons, was first used in France in the mid-seventeenth century. The term was derived from the French word “bureau” meaning “office” in English. The other word completing the term “cratie” has its roots in old Greek and means power and domination (Şahin,1998:2). The various approaches to describing the features of bureaucracy diversify the definition of the concept. The first approach defines bureaucracy by stressing the structural features of an organization. In this context we are confronted with a bureaucracy carrying certain characteristics as division of labour, hierarchy and procedure systems. The second approach, which pays more attention to behavioural features, refers to positive organizational aspects such as objectivity, certainty, accuracy, file info and consistency as well as to negative aspects like avoidance of responsibility, paperwork, rigidity, excessive secrecy, unwillingness in the exercise and delegation of authorization (Heady’den akt. Eryılmaz,2008:6,7). Parallel to the definitions related to bureaucracy, a variety in bureaucratic theories can be observed. Hegel, Marx and Weber can be named as prominent figures contributing theoretically to the bureaucratic literature. Another theory contributing to the theories is the elitist theory. In understanding the relationship between politics and bureaucracy and especially between the bureaucrat and the politician, three different approaches come to the forefront. The first and accepted approach is that the political system determines the policy to be applied and the bureaucracy applies the determined policy as demanded. The aspect putting this approach forth is the inspection of the politicians on bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The mechanism is realized with the inspection of bureaucracy by politicians and the obedience of bureaucrats to politicians (Durgun, 2002: 84) and bureaucrats are ideally seen as a ruling staff without political choices, a staff approaching facts impartially and applying every decision made by the politicians (Bayır, 2007: 45). The second approach, on the other hand, denies the political-ruling distinction, bureaucracy has both an administrative and political role, and bureaucrats are in general an intrinsic aspect of governance and the policy process. The advocates of this view think that the relationship of politicians and bureaucrats is rational, complementing, interactive and interlocked rather than hierarchic. The fact that bureaucrats play an active role in society and politics contributes to justice, equality and public good (Eryılmaz, 2008: 96). The development of a strong democratic administration within society requires above all the existence of sophisticated, conscious and productive citizens and also a rational, participatory and responsible political construction. The public in a society where democracy is existent as a ruling method refers to right, appropriate and equal treatment in the actions and also to the support of the usage of citizenship rights in terms of democratic rights like liberty, justice, freedom, equality and impartiality (Yıldırım, 2009:103,4). In this context it can be spoken of an existence of a positive and meaningful relationship in the framework of equality and equal rights between democracy and bureaucracy. The fact that bureaucracy has not individual but universal criteria in modern state administrations, that is bureaucratic rules and authority are based on non-personal principles, is in harmony with democracy, which has a claim of considering everyone equal before the law. However, this situation does not always bear the same results. (Mouzelis, 2003: 25-6). On the other hand, the values of democracy are meaningful in terms of preventing the bureaucracy to create a closed group of officials and the decrease of authority of the official staff consisting of appointees. Therefore, democracy which is in favour of an order created by the majority presents a contrast with the thought of creating an elite administrative structure (Öztürk, 2003: 36). The sources transforming bureaucracy to an important power centre are the same sources that make the bureaucracy of what it is and lead to its consideration within society as a legitimate institution in terms of its functions. At this point the knowledge and expertise of the bureaucrats come first into foreground. Bureaucracy as an institution collecting, archiving and managing information holds the information the government needs and the technical expertise needed for the understanding and interpretation of this information (Eryılmaz, 2008: 98). Besides the knowledge and expertise of the bureaucrats being effective in the determination of the policies to be applied, this makes them also professionals in applying the policies. Characteristics such as professionalism, a permanent and stable status, possessing a certain institutional ideology and quick decision making, the power of planning and budgeting render the bureaucrat an important actor in the state administration. When considering the power sources of political institutions and especially politicians, we first think of the legitimacy of political institutions. In this context, politicians representing legitimate authority have the right to allocate the financing required in the functioning of public bureaucracy in the budget process. Moreover, they can mobilize and enhance their representative power through their relations with political parties and pressure groups because they stand on a certain voter base. Furthermore, political leaders can produce alternative information sources by creating their own expert staff other than the present bureaucratic structure (Eryılmaz, 2008:98-108/ Öztürk, 2003:119-125). However, the power sources of politics are abstract against the power sources of bureaucracy especially because of its discontinuity. In bureaucracy, on the other hand, a daily functioning process makes its existence stronger. The incompatibility of interests between the bureaucrat and politician can also be seen as one of the sources for conflict between bureaucracy and politics. While the politician aims to get more votes, the bureaucrat aims to obtain a greater budget and to protect the institutional benefit and struggles for it. Therefore, although they seem to pursuit common values like serving society, the difference in benefits maximized by politicians and bureaucrats lead to tension. Problems experienced within bureaucracy and present political structures can negatively affect the realization of responsibilities towards society in the implementation of democracy. The most important of all is related to trust. We are confronted with the reality, observable in the social structure, that individuals expecting to make use of equal rights and services by authorizing their initiatives to these institutions do not really trust these institutions. In addition, this situation can be one of the main reasons for the differentiation between state and society by harming the trust felt for institutional structures. At this point it is important to adopt a view putting priority to individuals expecting service in the state administration. Furthermore, non-governmental organizations setting a bridge for a sound connection between state and society are also one of the structures playing an important role in the functioning of bureaucracy and politics. In this context, non-governmental organizations obtaining their power from civil will hold to some extend the power to contribute to the creation of a democratic order by monitoring these institutions. But the existence of such a civil society requires the existence of citizens aware of their rights and responsibilities. To put it briefly, the appropriate functioning of democracy, which is the ideal administrative method of today’s societies, seems to be dependent on the relationship of an order where institutions guarding the benefits of society exist and are inspected by non-governmental organizations created by responsible individuals.
The main stress of democracy which is the ideal administrative method of modern societies can briefly be defined as the ruling of those elected by the people under their own will, the equality and equal rights for the citizens. The functioning of democracy is possible with the existence of institutions organized with certain rules. Bureaucracy covers this definition and is the main agent for the execution of democracy in an unproblematic way. Furthermore, bureaucracy which implies a form of organization determined by rules and laws in all levels of the state embodies also structures required by the political organization legally holding the power to rule the people. Thought within this context, the harmonious functioning of the structures created by the elected and the bureaucratic institutions consisting of appointees appears to be a vital necessity for the execution of democracy. However, it is possible to state that these institutions bear some structural and functional problems in practice. In general the term bureaucracy which refers to the execution of procedures and actions, valid in a certain administrative system, by authorized and specialized persons, was first used in France in the mid-seventeenth century. The term was derived from the French word “bureau” meaning “office” in English. The other word completing the term “cratie” has its roots in old Greek and means power and domination (Şahin,1998:2). The various approaches to describing the features of bureaucracy diversify the definition of the concept. The first approach defines bureaucracy by stressing the structural features of an organization. In this context we are confronted with a bureaucracy carrying certain characteristics as division of labour, hierarchy and procedure systems. The second approach, which pays more attention to behavioural features, refers to positive organizational aspects such as objectivity, certainty, accuracy, file info and consistency as well as to negative aspects like avoidance of responsibility, paperwork, rigidity, excessive secrecy, unwillingness in the exercise and delegation of authorization (Heady’den akt. Eryılmaz,2008:6,7). Parallel to the definitions related to bureaucracy, a variety in bureaucratic theories can be observed. Hegel, Marx and Weber can be named as prominent figures contributing theoretically to the bureaucratic literature. Another theory contributing to the theories is the elitist theory. In understanding the relationship between politics and bureaucracy and especially between the bureaucrat and the politician, three different approaches come to the forefront. The first and accepted approach is that the political system determines the policy to be applied and the bureaucracy applies the determined policy as demanded. The aspect putting this approach forth is the inspection of the politicians on bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The mechanism is realized with the inspection of bureaucracy by politicians and the obedience of bureaucrats to politicians (Durgun, 2002: 84) and bureaucrats are ideally seen as a ruling staff without political choices, a staff approaching facts impartially and applying every decision made by the politicians (Bayır, 2007: 45). The second approach, on the other hand, denies the political-ruling distinction, bureaucracy has both an administrative and political role, and bureaucrats are in general an intrinsic aspect of governance and the policy process. The advocates of this view think that the relationship of politicians and bureaucrats is rational, complementing, interactive and interlocked rather than hierarchic. The fact that bureaucrats play an active role in society and politics contributes to justice, equality and public good (Eryılmaz, 2008: 96). The development of a strong democratic administration within society requires above all the existence of sophisticated, conscious and productive citizens and also a rational, participatory and responsible political construction. The public in a society where democracy is existent as a ruling method refers to right, appropriate and equal treatment in the actions and also to the support of the usage of citizenship rights in terms of democratic rights like liberty, justice, freedom, equality and impartiality (Yıldırım, 2009:103,4). In this context it can be spoken of an existence of a positive and meaningful relationship in the framework of equality and equal rights between democracy and bureaucracy. The fact that bureaucracy has not individual but universal criteria in modern state administrations, that is bureaucratic rules and authority are based on non-personal principles, is in harmony with democracy, which has a claim of considering everyone equal before the law. However, this situation does not always bear the same results. (Mouzelis, 2003: 25-6). On the other hand, the values of democracy are meaningful in terms of preventing the bureaucracy to create a closed group of officials and the decrease of authority of the official staff consisting of appointees. Therefore, democracy which is in favour of an order created by the majority presents a contrast with the thought of creating an elite administrative structure (Öztürk, 2003: 36). The sources transforming bureaucracy to an important power centre are the same sources that make the bureaucracy of what it is and lead to its consideration within society as a legitimate institution in terms of its functions. At this point the knowledge and expertise of the bureaucrats come first into foreground. Bureaucracy as an institution collecting, archiving and managing information holds the information the government needs and the technical expertise needed for the understanding and interpretation of this information (Eryılmaz, 2008: 98). Besides the knowledge and expertise of the bureaucrats being effective in the determination of the policies to be applied, this makes them also professionals in applying the policies. Characteristics such as professionalism, a permanent and stable status, possessing a certain institutional ideology and quick decision making, the power of planning and budgeting render the bureaucrat an important actor in the state administration. When considering the power sources of political institutions and especially politicians, we first think of the legitimacy of political institutions. In this context, politicians representing legitimate authority have the right to allocate the financing required in the functioning of public bureaucracy in the budget process. Moreover, they can mobilize and enhance their representative power through their relations with political parties and pressure groups because they stand on a certain voter base. Furthermore, political leaders can produce alternative information sources by creating their own expert staff other than the present bureaucratic structure (Eryılmaz, 2008:98-108/ Öztürk, 2003:119-125). However, the power sources of politics are abstract against the power sources of bureaucracy especially because of its discontinuity. In bureaucracy, on the other hand, a daily functioning process makes its existence stronger. The incompatibility of interests between the bureaucrat and politician can also be seen as one of the sources for conflict between bureaucracy and politics. While the politician aims to get more votes, the bureaucrat aims to obtain a greater budget and to protect the institutional benefit and struggles for it. Therefore, although they seem to pursuit common values like serving society, the difference in benefits maximized by politicians and bureaucrats lead to tension. Problems experienced within bureaucracy and present political structures can negatively affect the realization of responsibilities towards society in the implementation of democracy. The most important of all is related to trust. We are confronted with the reality, observable in the social structure, that individuals expecting to make use of equal rights and services by authorizing their initiatives to these institutions do not really trust these institutions. In addition, this situation can be one of the main reasons for the differentiation between state and society by harming the trust felt for institutional structures. At this point it is important to adopt a view putting priority to individuals expecting service in the state administration. Furthermore, non-governmental organizations setting a bridge for a sound connection between state and society are also one of the structures playing an important role in the functioning of bureaucracy and politics. In this context, non-governmental organizations obtaining their power from civil will hold to some extend the power to contribute to the creation of a democratic order by monitoring these institutions. But the existence of such a civil society requires the existence of citizens aware of their rights and responsibilities. To put it briefly, the appropriate functioning of democracy, which is the ideal administrative method of today’s societies, seems to be dependent on the relationship of an order where institutions guarding the benefits of society exist and are inspected by non-governmental organizations created by responsible individuals.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Demokrasi, bürokrasi, bürokrasi ve siyaset ilişkisi, Democracy, bureaucracy, the relationship between bureaucracy and politics
Kaynak
Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
25
Künye
Aksan, G., Çelik, Ö., (2011). Gerilim ve Uzlaşma: Demokrasi Ekseninde Bürokrasi ve Siyaset İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25, 1-10.
