is an inevitable movement independent of political regimes: “The future belongs to bureaucracy”. Power is a “social relationship” that allows an individual or a group of individuals to impose their “will”. The modern legal rationality and legitimacy of political authority in modern societies is embodied in the state bureaucracy that emerges at the same time as the modern state, based on the rule of law and the expression of the sovereignty of citizens. This power is exercised by the representatives of the people within the limits set by the country’s constitution. The rule of law presupposes the development of a specialized power, that of state jurists who implement the legal formalism, monitor its application and sanction its non-compliance, and more generally, presupposes the development of the administration, which Weber says is not incompatible with the capitalist state.
Moreover, on the economic level, capitalism favors the development of bureaucracy insofar as, by allowing it to have the necessary financial means at its disposal through taxation, it represents the most rational economic basis for its existence.
1.4.2. The evolution of the activities of state bureaucracy actors
Legal rationality leads both to a change in the nature of the politician and their action and requires new skills for civil servants.
In fact, with state bureaucracy, a new kind of politician appears: the “political professionals” who replace the former public figures. The parties are now led by these people, who head up the meetings of militants and ensure that their candidates are nominated to participate in the elections. Hence, Weber (2019) states that these professionals “take over the political enterprise that has become a veritable machine. Only he whom the machine is ready to follow can become the leader”. In order for these leaders to be accepted, Weber analyzes the message they must convey: they must persuade those who will obey them that they have the qualities necessary for the exercise of power.
There are two ways of doing politics: either occasionally (when a voter votes) or as a profession (as an elected official and representative of the people). Similarly, professional politicians fall into two categories: those who live “for” politics and make it their life’s mission, and those who live “from” politics as the main source of their income. The former can only be recruited in a plutocratic way, from among the wealthy, because doing politics without being paid requires holding a personal fortune. In order to prevent the latter from becoming dominant in a democracy, they must be paid. The economic consequences of these respective situations are that it is not uncommon for leaders to use their dominant position to also live “off” politics and to promote their own interests, especially through fierce struggles to grant themselves or their relatives the distribution of reserved jobs.
The power of bureaucratic officials is strictly regulated through legally defined capacities. Indeed, in modern times, authority no longer rests on the same characteristics as before. What matters now is competence, the search for efficiency and the formal rationalization of activities. As a result, individuals in charge of authority are recruited through competitive examinations. Having to demonstrate independence and impartiality, they are remunerated according to their qualifications and qualities, which are themselves controlled according to precise standards by a well-defined hierarchy accepted by all. Moreover, corruption is much more difficult to perpetrate.
Thus, for Weber, the modern state brings about a change in the professions of these administrators, who must henceforth behave like employees of a company “As in a company, the minister is above all the representative of the political constellation in power. His task is therefore to enforce the program of this constellation. Things do not happen differently in a private company”.
Civil servants must therefore receive specific training and apply the methods imposed on them. They fall into two categories: those whom Weber calls “career civil servants” (those who are obliged to leave their post when the political official who chose them is no longer in office or when representatives of the incumbent majority are defeated in elections) and those he refers to as “political officials” (who can be displaced at will by the government or laid off).
1.4.3. Advantages and disadvantages of state bureaucracy
Weber explains that modern state bureaucracy has several advantages, visible at different levels. It requires the gathering of many people, because it needs to assert its power and domination. The result is a division of labor and specialized knowledge: civil servants enjoy a technical superiority that makes them efficient, especially since control of their hierarchy reduces their ability to make mistakes.
Bureaucracy favors an economy formed through rational calculation, hitherto unknown, with law as a founding element that leads to a respect for procedures through precise, written and impersonal rules that individuals are obliged to respect on a daily basis. These are the norms adopted for the coverage of needs, civil servants being, henceforth, capable of evaluating in a quantified way the results of their actions, which will be seen as one of the conditions for the appearance of modern capitalism and its efficiency: they are thus used to making calculations and forecasts. The formalism they must follow replaces the previous situation based on affectivity and traditions.
Moreover, the formalization of law has repercussions both for economic and social life. For example, trade by contract has transformed commercial relations, which are now guaranteed by the state. At the same time, because of this contractualization, social relations are rationalized since bureaucratization creates a leveling of social conditions, as the civil servant fulfills their function in a formal and impersonal way. For example, today there is no longer any interference between economic activities and family activities: the law has clearly separated these two structures.
However, the advantages of bureaucracy should not obscure its drawbacks. De Tocqueville warned against administrative centralization, because it prevents the state from making the necessary reforms for fear of being blamed for them and chasing away those who have chosen to carry them out. He was therefore in favor of political decentralization by way of ensuring that decision-makers are close to citizens.
First, the anonymity of public actors leads to the impersonality of functions and prevents them from turning against a well-identified person in the event of a problem. Second, freedom can be impeded: individual life becomes more and more dependent on legal rules and the autonomy of individuals is compromised as a result. Finally, political freedom is reduced since the political influence of civil servants becomes more important than that of political leaders.
To many citizens, it therefore often appears that the administration is a separate instrument of domination, constituting a body of autonomous power, which is genuinely dominant. Only good politicians can prevent this from happening.
1 1 Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704).
2 2 Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992). Among his many books are: The Road to Serfdom, Routledge Press, London (1944); The Constitution of Liberty, Routledge and Kegan, London (1967); Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Routledge and Kegan, London (1967); and Law, Legislation and Liberty, Routledge and Kegan, London, three volumes (1973, 1976, 1979).
3 3 All of these regulatory issues are discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.2.
4 4 Translation from The Online Library of Liberty:
