Dumbliauskas, Vytautas

A. Farazmand identifies three approaches towards relationship between politicians and bureaucrats in contemporary academic discussion. The first approach holds the idea of total control of bureaucracy by elected politicians. The second approach rejects dichotomy of politics-administration, and speaks for the twofold role of bureaucracy, both political and administrative. The third approach treats the high level bureaucrats as possessing certain autonomy vis-ą-vis politicians. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that already the early researchers of relationship between politicians and bureaucrats provided different explanation of their roles. In order to ensure effectiveness of public administration, W. Wilson separated administration and politics. M. Weber showed the dark side of administrative effectiveness – bureaucratization of public life, which can be controlled only by charismatic political leadership. J. Schumpeter pointed to the negative side of competition among such charismatic leaders, that is, decrease of administrative effectiveness. Therefore, he claimed that democratic government has to rely upon professional bureaucracy, which is sufficiently strong and independent. The article proposes a twofold explanation of these divergent approaches. First, it can be explained by variety of par liamentary systems, which is determined by differing executive-legislative linkage. On of the extreme cases of such linkage is premiership of cabinet system, where the executive power dominates vis-ą-vis parliament. Such case could explain the approach (by M. Weber), according to which charismatic political leaders, who proved their capabilities during the party competition, could and should rule the systems of bureaucratic administration. Another extreme case – the French type assembly government – could explain the approach (by J. Schumpeter) that bureaucracy should be strong and independent, which could advice or even prescribe politicians, engaged into competition, which forces to care not about the effectiveness of state administration but the political value of administrative decisions. Second, the explanation of different approaches concerning the role of politicians and bureaucrats may by related to the fact that societies seek to have both politically responsive and professionally responsible bureaucracy. The aim of politically responsive bureaucracy rests on the understanding of the importance of political leadership in liberal democracies and its relationship with the state bureaucracy. This aim is expressed by M. Weber. Another aim comes from the understanding that implementation of public policy, formulated by politicians, depends on the professionalism of bureaucracy and its responsibility. This aim is articulated by J. Schumpeter.

Straipsnyje bandoma atsakyti į klausimą, kodėl šiuolaikiniai tyrinėtojai laikosi priešingų normatyvinių požiūrių į tai, kas ką turi kontroliuoti – politikai biurokratus ar biurokratai politikus. Atsakymas grindžiamas politikų ir biurokratų tarpusavio kova dėl viešosios politikos kontrolės. Šioje kovoje dominuoja tai vieni, tai kiti, nes dominavimas yra kintantis, priklauso nuo įvairių veiksnių. Tyrinėtojai, įžvelgiantys valstybės tarnybos dominavimą, pabrėžia būtinybę politiškai kontroliuoti biurokratiją, o įžvelgiantieji politikų dominavimą, biurokratijoje mato jėgą, galinčią neleisti politikams piktnaudžiauti galia.