Introduction
Stillman concepts of administration and public policy provides that success in bureaucracy comes from skilled executives who identify tasks in their organizations critically, and distribute authority appropriately in regards to those tasks.
Friedrich argues that there is necessity to instil formal and externally imposed mechanisms in ensuring administrative responsibility, due to rise in government administration, professionalism, and growth of public administration discretion and complexity. Friedrich’s ideas apply in the case of torture, as lack of these mechanisms is seen to lead to cases of torture. Unsustainable in practice was the conceptual distinction between administration and policy. Friedrich was more provident on the growth on the later part of the century of professional power and influence to government, unlike Finer, whose response was inserting formal and primary controls.
Similarly, according to Friedrich responsibility starts with arrangements of considerable margin of irresponsible conduct. In his view a responsible person gives an account of his acts and doings, to another body or person. Therefore, for this to be achieved there has to be an agreement between the principal concerning action in hand and achievement of some end. In this case when a person is tortured, there has to be an account of what really happened. He asserts that such agreements can be partial and incomplete, no matter who is involved, considering the complexity of modern governments. In his view unless complex structures are put in place, principals cannot effectively bring about responsible conduct of public affairs. He asserts that elaborate techniques should be put in place for explicit purposes, and activities involved in different phases of public policy. Such techniques can be helpful in torture cases.
In the same point, Friedrich emphasized on responsible conduct by officials. This is seen in most torture cases, as torture is seen to stem from ill- trained guards, who do not take initiatives in achieving government goals. In his view, inaction is irresponsible as it is a wrong action. He recognizes that bad policy is a source of wrong action. However, bad policy is more of the rule than exception. This is also seen in many detention camps as there are ill- developed policies that allow torture of victims.
Finer criticized Friedrich’s ideas, as lacking formulations for any institutional safeguards for administrative responsibility. Friedrich defined responsibility as a ‘sense of responsibility’ which is largely unsanctioned except by loyalty to professional standards. On the other hand Finer regards responsibility as an arrangement of punishment or correction, even up to dismissal of officials and politicians. Finer also defines responsibility as a moral obligation. He puts emphasis on conscience of the agent, and it follows from the definition that if he commits an error, it is an error only when recognized in his conscience. The ideas of conscience can be applicable in torture cases as most of the tortures make ones conscience feel that they are doing something wrong to fellow humans. Finer asserts that abuse id due to lack of punitive controls. There is abuse of power by officers in torture cases as there are no external punitive controls.
Finer’s ideas suggest that studies of different bodies and programs can contribute to improvement, but only due to someone who seeks to scrutinize and control; this be applied in torture cases as different studies can be used in improving the situation in places where torture occurs. In his view controls support good behaviours in the society and desirable values, hence impacting the trust level of the society. While Finer proposes that controls will increase accountability, Friedrich thinks that professionalism is the best way to increase accountability. Finer also argues that knowledge must be secondary to democratic controls, instead of technical feasibility and knowledge. The controls in his view should be based on three doctrines; mastership of the public, based on the sense of what the public needs. Secondly institutions must place partially elected bodies to exert public authority. Importantly, it is his third idea that the public institutions should express and channel public wants.
How some of their views more applicable to resolving this apparent dilemma of responsible administrative behaviour at Abu Gharib
Friedrich and Finer’s ideas are applicable in solving the current dilemma of administrative behaviour in Abu Gharib. Some of the applicable ideas are; according to Friedrich and Finer, policies need to be developed; hence public administration and public policy can never be separated. In both views policy is crucial in administration process, hence can be used to reduce the cases of torture. Friedrich complex structures which should be put in place and help in putting to an end torture. Both take responsibility as a vital tool in the process of administration, it can be used to determine the wrong actions and lack of inaction hence leading to justice and prevention of torture. Such structures are vital in bringing into place responsibility and accountability; hence prevent torture cases as administrative responsibility will lead to prevention of torture cases.
Finer’s idea of morality is also applicable, as it is morally wrong to torture another human for one reason or another, and based on this, it can be used in bringing torture to an end. Similarly, conscience is important in prevention of torture. His warnings on lack of punitive controls is applicable to torture cases as torture cases occur due to lack of these controls, hence abuse of powers. Finer’s ideas provide that controls should be based on public mastership, based on what the public needs. If such ideas are put into place, administrative structures or officials will put into mind the public interests. Therefore it is in the best interest of the public for administrative officials to protect human rights, including freedom from torture.
Why these ideas are applicable in Abu Gharib
These ideas can resolve the torture problem in Abu Gharib because; torture there is caused by loosened restraints of communication techniques, irresponsible officials and lack of administrative measures to prevent such torture cases. Additionally, torture in Abu Gharib can be seen to be caused by poor policies, which leads to torture of victims; the policy leads to omission and sometimes allows torture without punishing responsible officials. Bad policies can be seen as the cause of wrong action in Abu Gharib. Therefore, Friedrich’s view of inaction being a wrong cause of action is applicable as most officials fail to act, when they should act to prevent such torture. Hence Finer’s and Friedrich ideas on policy and controls, should be used to put in place measures in Abu Gharib, which promotes accountability, punitive controls and promote responsibility to prevent abuse of power.
How public interests can be secured in different administrative situations
Administrative law in many civil countries serves the function of implementing public interest of the society. Judicial review also plays a crucial function in ensuring protection of public interests and realization of democratic legislature; hence they should be implemented in protecting public interests. Public interests can also be protected through involving interest groups and citizens in assisting in delivery of policy. It has been seen that outcomes of administrative action is not mostly outcomes of authoritative implementation of pre- established rules, but rather a result of co- production between of the clients and administration. Such countries have state apparatus which do not enjoy privileged status over individuals. Public interest can also be secured through charging administration with running bureaucratic apparatus and securing order. If a civil servant acts illegally, he/she will be held accountable just as any private person acting in an illegal manner. The courts will then decide the legality of administrative omissions or acts in determining whether administration acted in breach of responsibilities or powers.
Public interest can be protected by not putting administrative actions in conclusive positions. Hence, consumers should be allowed to challenge the legality of administrative actions; because they are always majorly affected by administrative decisions, hence most often seek to challenge validity of such decisions. The courts are also seen to play a vital role in administrative legality and its conclusiveness; hence reviews should be made available at consumer’s suit when they have an interest in challenging administrative action. There is a meaningful categorization of administrative litigation depending on the purpose of a lawsuit. Subjective lawsuits are majorly meant to protect individual’s interests and right and provide remedies for aggrieved persons. Objective lawsuits secure legality of administrative power and promote public interests.
Conclusion
References
Stillman, R. (2009). Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 9th ed. New York: Cengage.
