I want to make a page about...

The overall state of a society depends on any one of many factors, but the most important is almost always the nature and effectiveness of its government: the official leadership and its supporting bureaucracy, which are the sovereign controlling forces. Sometimes a society is directly or indirectly controlled by an individual or group outside the official government. When this is the case, the term governance designates this form of unofficial government. For example, the activities of primitive societies often were directed as much by the shaman--the medicine man and interpreter of magical forces--as by a council of elders comprising the supreme tribal authority. A corporation, other organization, or individual whose activities and decisions determine community life is in fact the governing body rather than the official local government. In times past and in Iran today religious figures may dominate the government of a nation.

Except in the smallest societies, there are, of course, several levels of government: the sovereign or highest (national or federal), intermediate (state or region), and local (town, city, county, district). In the United States five levels of government are involved: federal, state, county, district, and municipal or township. In at least one state, a sixth level of regional government has been added. Each of these levels has its area of jurisdiction and authority determined by the national government. Local governments confront the day-to-day problems and needs of people most directly. They are subject to immediate and pressing public reaction when the essentials of daily life such as food, water, shelter, or civil order are affected. Or when an established high standard of living is threatened. Each successive higher level of government is concerned with broader socioeconomic considerations affecting larger areas; its laws and policies direct the next lower level of government. Certain functions of government are performed most successfully at the national level: for example, the monetary system, military defenses, tax collection, nationwide communication.

The tasks of government are correspondingly more complicated and difficult than in simpler societies in the past. This trend will continue with societies becoming more complex and harder to manage, possibly with a corresponding decrease in productive performance, unless governmental administration improves enough to compensate. As the size of bureaucracies increases to match population increases, regardless of need, governmental administration is made more difficult for this reason alone. In general, larger organizations are harder to manage than smaller ones. If the growth of governmental bureaucracies is for political purposes rather than a response to increased demand for services, effective performance is even less likely. If the ability of individual bureaucrats is no greater, the collective competence of the larger group is reduced. And if governmental "management by crisis" continues to be the prevailing option in the United States, the possibilities of effective action are reduced accordingly by the simple but crucial fact that conditions have been allowed to deteriorate to such a point that eventual improvement is more difficult and costly. The advantages of planning and anticipatory action before a crisis develops are lost. An ounce of prevention has not been provided to avoid the pound of cure. In many instances, belated mitigation rather than cure is all that is possible after a potentially catastrophic situation has been allowed to develop.

The success or failure of autocratic governments is evaluated by the ruling authority. The populace has little or nothing to say or to do, other than to commend for the purposes of ingratiation or to complain within the limits permitted. In freer societies the reputation of the government is affected by its external image in the eyes of the public, and its internal image in the minds of its members. If it is regarded as a "necessary evil," to be minimized to the extent possible in favor of corporate and individual enterprise, it cannot fulfill its societal responsibilities. If it is respected as a body of trained professionals performing essential and desirable activities in the public interest, it is a source of pride as a major force determining the current well-being and future prospects of the society. Of course, image and reality have a reciprocal relationship. A poor image may be the result of poor performance; it also makes it harder to attract the quality of people needed to improve the discredited bureaucracy. A favorable reputation is the consequence of effective performance; it attracts capable people and in so doing further strengthens the operations and image of an already successful bureaucracy. In some governments its employees are motivated by concern with the general public welfare or by professional interest in a particular function or activity of government. In others, governmental employment is a sinecure. Examples of the many different kinds of government and the wide range of special situations are to be found around the world. Bureaucracies range from the professional, efficient, and effective to incompetent, bloated, and corrupt.

Governmental management by crisis relates to the close and continuous contact that has been established between elected representatives and their constituents by the mass media of communication, by reduced travel times, and by the high cost of election and reelection. Politicians are aware that the body politic does not want to be confronted with problems, unpleasant realities, change, or any sacrifice. Accordingly, politicians are all too often unwilling to anticipate, plan ahead, or even acknowledge serious societal problems until they become so intolerable that they can no longer be ignored. The political consequences of current crises are less than the political advantage of disregarding critical problems to the extent possible and postponing necessary action until the last possible minute. Needless to say, such belated concern and forced action must cope with problems when they have become almost intractable, requiring more resources, more drastic action, and causing greater social instability than would have been the case had they been addressed earlier.

The cost of election and reelection to political office is forcing our elected representatives to spend as much or more time obtaining campaign funds than they devote to the process of governing, their primary responsibility. U.S. senators and representatives are now in their Washington offices an average of four days a week with weekends and recesses totaling several months to return home, maintain local contacts, and campaign for the next election. Public appearances and other activities relating to reelection take up additional time when they are in Washington. The importance of this continuous campaigning is confirmed by the 95 percent rate of reelection of incumbents. The cost in time and money of unseating them is prohibitive for all but the very wealthy, or someone supported by special interests willing to provide whatever money it takes for their candidate to be elected. This situation increases the average age of elected officials and decreases the rate of turnover and infusion of new people and ideas.

A consequence of these developments is that little time is left to analyze major problems confronting the government, determine what can and should be done, evaluate plans for improvement, devise legislation and programs of action to achieve necessary and desirable objectives, and monitor results. This primary purpose of government is receiving less and less attention and effort as problems multiply and become more severe. "Too many legislators pay more attention to the next election than to current legislative matters. It is impossible to be a good candidate and a good legislator simultaneously." Election now depends on money provided by special interests and politically supportive groups to pay for the necessary television time, other mass media exposure, public opinion polls, and the professional political consultants who are now an essential part of the elective process in the United States.

Accepting the money necessarily incurs some indebtedness on the part of the recipient. Many legislators maintain that this is no more than an obligation to meet with and listen to the views and special desires of major campaign contributors. That more than access and a receptive ear are usually involved is revealed almost daily in newspapers and on television. Within the past several years the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives resigned and a senior senator was censured because of unethical actions in connection with political donations. A U.S. senator was "strongly and severely reprimanded" for his linkage of fund raising and official activities in behalf of a savings and loan association. Probably most politicians whose election depends on such funds provided by special interests and political action groups have at one time or another favored legislation or taken other action in behalf of large contributors. And each member of a legislative body defers to certain political preferences of the others in a quid pro quo interrelationship.

Corruption has existed throughout history. As discussed in the next article, it is latent in human behavior. Official misconduct is therefore an existing or potential problem in all governments. It appears to be on the rise in the United States.

A federal grand jury indicted five state legislators . . . accusing them of accepting bribes in exchange for their support legalizing betting on horses and greyhounds.Federal prosecutors have identified six more present or former members of the . . . legislature as "known conspirators" in a bribery investigation.

There have been 18 months of scandals in high places, a fireworks of sex, stupidity and greed extraordinary even for this notoriously corrupt state . . . hauling off the treasurer, the attorney general, two state representatives, the Senate majority leader and two Senate presidents. . . . The governor from 1969 to 1977 and then again from 1985 to 1989, pleaded guilty to five counts of extortion, fraud, and obstruction of justice.

The huge amounts of money involved in drug trafficking are causing widespread corruption, allegedly extending to the last bastion of governmental probity: the federal judiciary. Malfeasance in government is probably greater at the federal and state levels than in localities. As noted previously local politicians are under closer scrutiny. But there are many examples of land-use zone changes and other actions by local legislators relating to real estate development that are demonstrably linked with campaign contributions. "In 10 instances . . . developers sharply increased contributions about the time a key project requiring approval reached the Board of Estimate." Legislation, approvals, and bureaucratic actions of various kinds occur unobtrusively favoring political donors and organizations capable of delivering a significant block of votes. Witness the allegations of corruption under investigation in the award of contracts by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and procurement by the Department of Defense during the 1980s.

Malfeasance is by no means limited to governments. It is shared by business and other elements of society. "Serious criminal fraud was discovered at 60 percent of the savings institutions seized by the government in 1989--triple the fraud rate in failures of commercial banks." Most issues of the Wall Street Journal contain reports of fraud and criminal acts within the business world. Corruption has extended to religious leaders and institutions. Many of the ethical derelictions in private enterprise and other nongovernmental institutions are part of or contribute to corruption in government. "The generic drug industry is corrupted by companies that took shortcuts to get drugs approved, including bribing regulators and submitting false data on equivalency and effectiveness."

The political system in the United States has changed markedly during the past several generations. When the population was much smaller and large urban concentrations far fewer, more direct citizen participation in the political process was possible than is the case today. In smaller communities, town meetings provided direct contact between constituents and their elected representatives in the actual conduct of government-as they still do in towns in several states. The issues were simpler and comprehensible to the electorate. Newspapers, magazines, and word of mouth were the main means of disseminating information and formulating individual and public opinion. Nowadays there are more than 250 million people in the United States. Two-thirds of them live in cities and metropolitan regions. The nation and the world have changed as a result of scientific and technical advances and a great expansion of international economic ties. Television and radio operate in the average household every day for hours on end.

Voters communicate their attitudes, opinions, and specific desires to elected representatives by direct contact, by their actions, and their responses to various forms of inquiry. The public at large expresses its views and desires continually through news reports, articles, and broadcasts of many kinds and the results of public opinion polls disseminated by the mass media. At prescribed times the voting public expresses its opinion of the performance of elected representatives at the ballot box.

From representatives who could vote and act beyond current opinion when they believed this was in the best interest of their constituency or the public at large, they have become middlemen and women who translate multiple public opinions and special interests into legislation and other political action.

Fifty years ago a leading authority on public opinion could demonstrate that the collective judgment of the American people was superior to that expressed by their political leaders: not only because of people's common sense and insight, but also because of their greater willingness to acknowledge and face reality than their elected representatives who were politically reluctant to take a stand until problems become intolerable. Today, common sense and ordinary insight are not enough.