Contriving Bureaucratic Values for Goodwill...!!!

My last post invoked diverse opinions and left a little but few confused readers. This time I shall make sure I do not take you guys for a ride and be as specific to my view as possible. This paragraph may well start off the post, but apparently was the last I wrote. While reading through my own thoughts put together in this post, I am compelled to request the readers to read it rather from a global perspective than just holding their thoughts glued to any particular region/state/country. I am not being specific to any one government or sect of people. The idea behind writing this post was to be as generic in nature as possible and avoid any human unjust. I have taken into consideration many parameters, including exponential increase/decrease in population, poverty, illiteracy, etc. on a World front. In this post I try to defy at the same time defend political bureaucracy that prevails in each and every regional/state/national government, and its effort to formulize a regime. 

Few fixtures of civilization invite more derision than bureaucracy. I understand that government agencies are necessary for the smooth operation of civic life but bristle at the prospect of having to interact with them. Public offices are cold, monolithic things, operating on principles that have little regard for personal niceties and human foibles. This fact is true for most administrations through out the world, be it be a Zimbabwe or The United States of America. What would excite me most today, is the very thought that all the administrations in the World working together under a common roof, a dream that is well distanced from truism.

Defying Bureaucracy is very naïve, but to understand its real intent and direction is only a matter of intellect. International bureaucracies are autonomous actors in a broader process of global governance. Their actions are oftentimes removed from the intentions and control of their creators; they affect other actors and engage in subject matters not formerly within their reach. Their factual impact remains underestimated. Little consolation can be found in the contention that international bureaucracies merely seek the effective implementation of global goals. A yawning gap unfolds between the mechanisms of control, means and ways for contesting the actions of bureaucracies and their actual exercise of public authority. These are the primary contentions motivating research on the development and conceptualization of international law. It emphasizes law’s constitutive role in providing a space for legal and political contestation as an indispensable prerequisite for the normative desirability of autonomous international bureaucracies. Amid all this is the idea of liberalization and how bureaucracy affects its roots. Let’s now discuss this in detail. 

Universal values exist, but it does not follow that the world ought to contain only liberal regimes. The sad fact is that universal values conflict with one another. There will always be a variety of legitimate regimes, liberal and non-liberal, because there is no single right way of resolving these universal conflicts. The last thing we need now is another liberal crusade. Instead, we should be thinking with some urgency about rules of coexistence among different regimes and ways of life. The justification of such a modus operandi cannot be the ideals of our own liberal cultures, but rather the values that are shared by all, or nearly all people. Among these, peace is primary. The argument between liberal fundamentalists - who claim universal authority for their values - and liberal relativists is particularly profitless. This is a good example of one of the besetting weaknesses of contemporary debate, i.e. lack of historical perspective.

“One can be an ethical Universalist whilst rejecting many liberal values.”

Though the theory that ethics is entirely a cultural creation has been cemented well in the minds of the people around the World, it should not be taken seriously. Some evils are human universals whose contents don't vary significantly across cultures. To suffer humiliation because of one's religion or culture or to be denied access to the basic necessities of life - these are evils for nearly everyone and they can be just as disabling as the risk of fatal violence. The same point can be put more positively by saying that there are some goods that all human beings need if they are to lead tolerable lives: peace, security, the rule of law, not to mention clean water and medical care. Such a list can never be complete, or beyond reasonable dispute, even so, the notion that it is bound to be arbitrary, or heavily culturally skewed, is silly. Human beings are not that different from one another. As with other animals, the conditions under which humans thrive can be known with a fair degree of accuracy.

To say that we can know the conditions of a human life which is worth living is not to say we can come up with anything like a universal morality or political system. Still less does it mean that western liberal morality ought to be imposed everywhere. Can anyone really believe that the highly individualistic type of family life found in some western countries is the best for all human beings? Is it seriously proposed that our temporary moral fashions be made law for all of humankind? In matters of personal morality, my own views are liberal, even ultra-liberal.

 

To have to choose between anarchy and tyranny is a common human experience. Looking to strong government to stave off anarchy may lead to a brutal dictatorship. On the other hand, overthrowing a tyranny may trigger a terrible civil war. There is no way of avoiding these conflicts. They go with the human condition. They are not found only in extreme situations. They occur whenever we have to choose between incompatible freedoms. So, Should the freedom to use racist speech be protected, as it is in India (well, not if BJP and Varun Gandhi continue to raise racial and communal slur with their hate speeches), or should it be curbed, as it is in virtually every other liberal democracy - including Britain? Perhaps unsurprisingly, I tend to the Indian view that freedom of expression should be limited by other freedoms, such as freedom from racist offence. But the idea that we can come up with an ideal constitution in which such conflicts are somehow conjured away is deeply ingrained

 

No single form of government is feasible, or legitimate, everywhere. The idea that only liberal democratic nation-states can be legitimate is a late 20th-century error. Now, as in the past, the legitimacy of states turns on how far they meet vital human needs. It is the failure of the Taliban state to keep the peace, secure prosperity and give recognition to the cultures and values of its citizens which undermines it legitimacy - not its failure to conform to the norms of a liberal nation-state. Nation-states may have some advantages over multinational states and empires, as you say - but I think the balance of advantage is patchier and has more to do with historical circumstances than you allow.

 

Whether nation-building is desirable is a question of time, place, and circumstance, not a matter of principle. Of course one might be right that “ethnocentrism” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism) is nothing new. At the same time, self-governing nation-states have always been exceedingly rare - and they always will be. China may develop into one -- but it is doubtful that India will (or should) and it is certain that Russia won't. Is there anyone who imagines that the Middle East can be made into a series of self-governing countries, in each of which the state is identified with a cultural majority? As a way of transcending or accommodating ethnocentrism, self-governing nationhood is a non-starter in much of the world. For better and for worse, the future of large portions of humanity lies in various kinds of multinational state, as much diverse as India.

 

The undoubted success in nation-building of countries such as the USA cannot be used as model in the rest of the world. A more modest, piecemeal approach is needed, with peace as the overriding objective. In some regions, that will mean defensive protectorates. In others it may mean long-term alliances with established imperial powers such as Russia. (India is one such example.)

Perhaps there is a reason we Indians seem resistant to government intrusion in our lives which is not a factor in other countries. Perhaps it is that we get the wrong people and structures within our government bureaucracies and other nations have somehow avoided this fiasco. Who amongst my Indian friends has not had some simple task turned into a nightmare by some surly, apathetic, government bureaucrat? I'm a contractor. If someone doesn't like my work, they can fire me or not renew the contract. If you get an attitude from a car salesman, you can go to another dealer. If you get an attitude from all dealerships, you can buy a motorcycle. But there is only one entity that can grant me a passport and that is the Government of India.

Over and over we see cases of incompetent and the apathetic ("What's the difference between incompetence and apathy?" "I don't know, and I don't care!"). To the bottom line...are we the exception? Have other nations figured out how to hire government employees who understand service, correct and sane procedure, and getting things done? Maybe that is why they can't understand our resistance to a growing governmental bureaucracy.

Comments Please!!!.