One of the most significant theories in public administration is the politics-administration dichotomy. The state of such a relationship and the appropriate role of administrators and political leaders in the political and administrative process have been debated over the past century (Demir and Nyhan, 2008 ). Public administration mostly involves the interrelations between the public and politicians, and administrators. In his opinion regarding this topic Wilson states that “although politics sets the task for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices" (Musavi and Tahmasebi, 2011 ) While Wilson was met with support from some and opposition from others, it is still debatable whether such a statement is applicable today. This paper evaluates Wilson’s statement and tries to determine its applicability today.
In many ways, Wilson’s idea is applicable in the current setup. First, administrative affairs are in danger of corruption and politicization of left in the hands of party organizations. If Congress, for instance, is given the authority to handle all major legislative functions, policy-making would be disorganized (Musavi and Tahmasebi, 2011 ). Additionally, Congress oversight is mostly weak. It is important, however, to note that the politics-administration dichotomy does not seek to undermine the importance of politics in the success of the country. Wilson aimed at strengthening and redirecting the political element of government while protecting administration at the same time. According to this theoretical construct, administration interacts with politics to enhance the organic state, whereby administrators directly construe and react appropriately to public opinion. If such a model is to be adopted, administrators would be engaged in the policymaking process, and elected officials would form part of the administrative process. In that way, public administration would be more efficient.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Second, the politics-administration dichotomy promotes democracy in the sense that administration would help “rescue” democracy from its own extremes. Many European countries, for instance, have embraced this ideology and, as a result, experienced effective democracy and a proper balance between politics and administration (Musavi and Tahmasebi, 2011 ). In such countries, politics is clearly separate from the administrative process. It is noteworthy that the core purpose of administration not only involves ministry but also discretion, guidance, and adaptation. In other words, administration houses and realizes the law in practice. Also, there two main roles of government: the communication of popular will and the implementation of this will. In this case, the purpose of politics would be to communicate the popular will while the role of administration would be implementing this will. It can be seen, therefore, that administration should be distinctly separate from politics, but the two can work together to achieve desirable results.
Despite the perceived benefits of the politics-administration dichotomy, it is barely applicable in the actual government environment. Some scholars argue that public administration is “tightly connected” to the political system (Demir and Nyhan, 2008 ). To adopt this construct would imply fact-finding, opposition to theory and in some instances, rationality, which is simply impossible when considering the complex nature of government. Government is a blatantly political organization whereby most actions, including transfers, hires, and discharges, are politically charged.
From the discussion, it can be concluded that the perceived advantages of the politics-administration dichotomy outweigh the disadvantages. This theoretical construct suggests that creating a clear distinction between politics and administration would protect administrative affairs from the corruptive nature of politics. In this case, administrators would be engaged in the policymaking process, and elected officials would form part of the administrative process, thus making public administration more effective. Also, the politics-administration dichotomy promotes democracy. The purpose of politics would be mainly expressing popular opinion, while that of administration would implementing this opinion. However, given the complex nature of government, applying the politics-administration dichotomy in its pure form would be impractical. One has to consider the fact that most of the government’s operations are politically charged.
References
Demir, T., & Nyhan, R. C. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy: An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration Review , 68 (1), 81-96.
Musavi, S. M. M., & Tahmasebi, R. (2011). Politics-administration dichotomy: a century debate. Revista» Administrative in Management Public « (RAMP) , (17), 130-143.
