bureaucratic jaggurnaut

Life is about pragmatism and realism, not utopianism. Look at that cluster of individuals who are our administrators, office holders, politicians and rulers. Even when we live in the global world of internet and e-governance, the huge unwieldy mainframe beasts hold all the aces to cement old and obsolete working procedures,
processes and organisational forms (to encode greater levels/snarl ups of bureaucracy) into the software that fail even the most surgical IT wizards to resolve the chaos caused by red tape and bureaucratic leviathan. The thick skinned pachyderms carry mincing knife, don bulletproof armour and always busy themselves into defending their positions, fending for themselves, protecting their interests and furthering their objectives.
Always guided by ‘what-is-in-it-for-me’ factor and expert at passing the buck these desk-jockeys are known for their art of firing from someone else‘s shoulder. If it’s to their advantage to risk violating norms, they do not hesitate to side with the forces they are supposed to fight against. The risk averse, non activist pencil pushers are strong advocates of Nimbyism (not-in-my-backyard). For them activity is more important than accomplishment, and fixing responsibility for an error more important than avoiding the error. They ensure someone’s head under them must roll or else their own heads may roll. Emphasis being on doing things rightly, rather than doing the right things, whether one does something or not, these kinds of office-holders would try never doing things wrongly or erring on the wrong sides of rules.
Success is bastard and failure an orphan, defeat its own punishment and victory its own reward. A public employee knows that credit is sucked up and blame passed down to others. Few remember the good work one did. What are inquired into are the mistakes. A shunted down official is rarely treated with sympathy as someone who has been wronged. Less someone works the fewer errors he makes. Our worldly wise man hates sympathised for being merely good. As people sing the paeans of the victor, none is there to highlight good qualities and virtues of the vanquished. He does not want disparaged into extolling good qualities of the victor. His moralistic approach gets him the cachet of a do-gooder, but not praise for his honesty.
He who has fewer weaknesses is difficult to control. For he works as per rules, does what the law ordains and won’t pitch in extra work than is required from him, he can’t be expected to be extra subservient to anybody. He has no motivation to go out of the way and beyond the brief, to ingratiate himself with the boss by being his yes-man. The upshot is that he is regarded as relatively unreliable, disobedient and a hard nut to crack. His demeanor brings him a tag of misfit, finicky, stubborn, negative, inflexible, pusillanimous and what not. He is a thorn in the flesh. Most hated person, he is sort of innocent child who often lands parents in big trouble with his childlike sincerity, fruitfulness and innocence. He is arraigned for the unlawful act of someone else (who is let off scot-free). Life grows hell for him.
Sincerity and speaking the truth land people in serious trouble. They face something that is to their own disadvantage. Bureaucracy realises that honesty and financial propriety are not enough. They know how to appear to be so from the documents. In the law of jungle, good and bad and right and wrong are indistinguishable. Rotten apple that attempts to go unscrupulous single-handedly, knows his colleagues would complain and depose against him. He is likely to be caught by superiors, subordinates and colleagues. He won’t get help from any quarter in extricating himself from the unenviable situation. He needs mentors, guides, protectors, accomplices and supporters. A greedy and dishonest person is the best choice. Bureaucracy is about power struggle not truth and therefore looks for ammunition to use in the power struggle. For every strict official that won’t violate rules at someone’s bidding, the establishment encourages another bureaucrat willing to risk violating rules.
Even if he imperils the economy through decisions within the rules, none will ask the public servant to pay up. In order to be success in the changeful bureaucracy he’s got to appear (and he certainly does so) thick skinned, hypocritical, and insensitive and not someone non-compromising. A person is powerful because he is in a position to abuse his power. To achieve this he may have to rely on the fellows that are ready to risk bending or breaking the rules. If there is no problem to solve, there is no reason for bureaucracy in the first instance. One implication of this is that achieving outstanding results is inherently difficult and achieving this requires strong conviction in what one is doing. Bureaucrat does not have one and does not even need to have it.
In order to ensure his importance and safety boss would ensure hiding his subordinates’ competence. An incompetent bureaucrat is always loyal to the authorities. He has every reason to indulge in sycophancy of the incompetent boss, become his eyes and ears, guide him and keep him in a good humour. Nobody bows to another person for nothing. People know that credit goes more to the efficiency of his enemies rather than to boss for disciplinary authority. But for his enemies none would have smelt even a whiff of his wrongdoings if any. In our wonderland of red tape and perverted sense of justice, if crime is committed, just about anyone is to be punished irrespective of who is guilty. Justice here is measured by whether someone or the other has been punished for the crime (any one whom the noose fits in, irrespective of the fact whether or not the poor fellow is remotely connected/involved) even though in contravention of the general civilized principle that ‘let a thousand guilty get away unpunished, but let not one innocent be punished’.