Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - V. Politics - 20. Underlying Factors - 2. The Wave of Democracy and the Need for Bureaucracy
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
434 An American Dilemma
ruption of the politically closely-controlled administrations has been seen
to be ‘^more democracy and not less.” In this movement the indirect elec-
tion of legislative bodies was changed to direct election, appointive public
officers were changed to elected ones, and the terms for officials and legis-
latures W’ere shortened. In some states measures have been instituted
enabling the voters, by the use of the petition and special election (the
recall), to oust public officials at any time during their term. In some
states this applies even to justices, sheriffs and other peace officers. The
popular initiative and the referendum, found in many states of the Union,
are part of the same pattern.
This movement has always been supported by those in America who
defended the rights of the common people and who considered themselves
the upholders of the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy. Perhaps in no other
respect did the American variant of early nineteenth century political
liberalism become so different from the same movement in those European
countries mentioned as most comparable. In those countries, liberalism also
demanded the ultimate power for the people themselves, and it also wanted
to restrict narrowly the sphere of government activity. But, within its proper
realm, liberalism in Europe advocated a government in which laws are
enforced, while American liberalism since Jefferson and until recent
decades has been tinged with philosophical anarchism. By the middle of the
nineteenth century, liberals in those other countries largely succeeded in
freeing politics from corruption and in perfecting administration as an
effective instrument in the hand of governments which were becoming
democratized. American liberalism was more suspicious of state authority
and suspicious even toward the security and prestige of officeholders. It
was more interested in checking bureaucracy than in reforming and utilizing
it.
The politically dependent American administrations have, particularly
in the states and in the local communities, continuously turned out to be
rather inefficient organs for carrying on public affairs and have often been
corrupt. This situation has long been recognized in America. The fact that
the British rule in colonial times was also inefficient and corrupt has con-
tributed toward the common American belief that politics and administra-
tion are always this way and that they must always be so. Gradually
“politics” and “politicians” became derogatory words in America. Bureau-
cracy, even at best, became synonymous with “red tape.” The relatively low
social prestige of public servants, which is a natur^ concomitant of their
lack of independence and their insecurity of tenure*, their subservience to
the political game*, and the various practices they have to resort to as office-
seekers, became accentuated. Public administration thus failed to attract its
fair share of the intelligence and ambition of the youth in the nation.
The fact that land speculators, big business, and, generally, the wealthy
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
