Public bureaucracy constitutes different categories of people that work in subsystem within the bureaucracy. In each category, there is clamor for power by the public officials. Subsystems present in the bureaucratic institution have broad outcomes. The subsystems vary in size from one locale to another. Most public organizations have several subsystems while some organizations have five. The gray areas between the boundaries signify lack of a clear boundary. The subsystems in various agencies exhibit proportions since they compete for influence and status (Stillman, 2009). Any subsystem in an organization permits adaptation to the issues that face it; in this case, it is not necessary to have all the subsystems in one agency or locale. The subsystems contain different behaviors within a public organization. The five subsystems include political appointees, professional people, government appointees, union workers, and casual laborers.
The political appointees occupy the senior positions in the government. The political parties are elected in their offices and do not have permanent status. The chief elected official can promote and demote the political appointees in office. The government has a few numbers of the political appointees (Stillman, 2009). The Federal political appointees contain Presidential appointees with the consent of the senate (PAS), presidential appointees without senate consent (PA), and agency appointees. The PAS have the least number of people that has remained the same for a long time. The number of political appointees varies with the form of the government in a country. Some form of governments give political appointments in terms of party loyalists and political benefaction. Some cities in the contemporary world, reserve the policy-making role to the political appointees to serve the government or the city at the gratification of the governor or mayor. The posts of political appointees are few and go to the few influential people within a region’s political circles.
The professional cluster has the technocrats that undergo intense training to enable them serve the government. The professional decide the course of direction in the public organization. The governments appoint the professionals based on their areas of specialty and technical savoir-faire. The professionals determine the course taken by the government (Stillman, 2009). The government agencies place the professional elite in terms of their skills and content of work. The professionals take over the role of policy making due to new world order. The professionals control the inner sanctum of power as the culture in this decade. America’s military contains professional officers that are subject to professional training in the learning centers. Public administration has the belief that professional people lead to effectiveness and good performance.
The professionals have an edge over the political appointees in policy-making role in the government. The professionals have skills and expertise that can serve the public interest.
The civil service comprises of government employees. The civil service is prone to laissez- faire Attitude since the employee strives to do the required task only. In the past, the civil service basis was party dependability. Later on the governments abandoned that process due to political campaigns by reformist groups and adapted the merit process to recruit employees in the public service (Stillman, 2009). The chief executive ensures a transparent process for selection and recruitment of the public service without any political interference. Cities adopt a civil service system that applies the merit to rid the government of corruption in administering appointments. The civil service in America reflects the populace education and income demographics. Women occupy the low ranks, teaching, and nursing sectors. Few women tend to occupy the male dominated sector such as the police and the fire department. The civil service subsystem provides for competitive processes throughout the Federal state. The civil servant operates without the control of the elites in the subsystem. Every civil servant charts own way by making interactions either vertically or horizontally in the public organization.
The unionized subsystem gains its power in shaping the public bureaucracy in this decade. It comprises of the public service employees that control bureaucratic performance to influence the society. The unionized workers bargains for the employees against discrimination by the employers. Legislation empowers the union to perform collective bargaining on behalf of the public service. In the 1980, the unionized movement slackens due to cutback and the weakening of collective bargaining process (Stillman, 2009). America has three powerful unions that serve the interest of the public service. These unions aggressively file collective bargaining negotiations to represent the public service. The negotiations involve the working conditions, discrimination, and grievance procedures.
The contract employment subsystem encompasses all contractual work held on behalf of the government. Some cities in America contract their municipal roles including the security. The government experiences problems of enforcing accountability and transparency to the contractual workers. Many fraud cases on the sub-contracted work signify problems of public accountability. The government has to employ policies that will ensure competence in the implementation of the contractual work. This is because no one is accountable to the numerous money on the budget is spent on the sub-contracted projects. Most contractors operate independent of process of budget that remains inaccessible to the public domain.
The neoconservatives were of the opinion to eliminate Saddam Hussein due to his war invasion in Kuwait among other atrocities. United States has a foreign policy to ensure it remains the sole superpower in the world. From the onset, the United States administration believed it had to be involved in Middle East peace process. The United States spent colossal amounts on military and remained mum on the foreign policy. After the terrorist Attack on September 11, there was a debate to engage war with Iraq and pursue Hussein. This matter remained top secret since the public was undergoing the aftermath of terrorist attack. In the summer of 2002, Bush had made the inevitable decision to pursue Hussein in Iraq (Stillman, 2009). Professional military officers cautioned Bush administration of no connection between Iraq and terrorist attacks. The professional cadres offered that the war engagement would be costly. Other elites in the political circles cited that war could jeopardize the terrorist campaign. Bush critics held that the current administration had misled the public. The president was of the opinion that Iraq had facilities to manufacture chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. There was no evidence to ascertain the connection of al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. There was a strong argument in the political circles on the assertion that Saddam was indeed designing weapons of mass destructions. There was an assertion that Saddam purchased uranium oxide from Niger in Africa. The professional subsystem did not warrant those claims for lack of supporting evidence. This led to disagreements between neoconservatives and the democrats concerning the war in Iraq.
Stillman’s view is useful in elaborating the current American culture in politics. Stillman argues that that the political appointees’ subsystem occupies the highest post within the public organization. These kinds of people are influential courtesy of the lengthy period working in the government. In reality there is a lot of power struggles in this subsystem to attain status and influence. In this case, the political appointees develop close ties with the top officials to attain loyalty in the uncertain operations in the government. The careerist subsystem helps one understand how the experts compete with the political appointees for power occasioned by their expertise and specialized skills. Stillman’s view is that the professional elite have commitment in their work and this makes them to have long longevity in the agencies. This makes them to have political strength coupled with popularity and drive policies that have public interest.
My understanding in decision-making is that bureaucracies should endeavor to create trust and order in the public administration. The policy makers must empower the lower cadres of staff to ensure decision and practices in the organizations are performed in an ethical way. The current form of government uses delegation of authority in the development of policies. In the political circles, the leaders use power to influence the decisions in the bureaucratic agencies. Most leaders rely on the administrative procedures to control bureaucratic discretion and influence the locales.
My personal observation about public administration is that political appointees benefit from security of tenure due to the close ties with the appointing authority. The political appointee is not subject to arbitrarily dismissal without a justifiable cause that is in line with the discretion of the appointing authority. These people are birds of passage since they enjoy the top level policy making positions. The professionals do not serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. These people remain in their clusters even after the change of administration. The civil service is subject to merit system during hiring and promotion.
References
Stillman, R. (2009). Key Decision Makers Inside Public administration. Public Administration Concepts and Cases book (9 ed., pp. 171-185). Boston Mass: Wardsworth,Cengage Learning.
