[HPforGrownups] Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy!

[manawydan]

No: HPFGUIDX 147364

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "starjackson1" <starjackson1 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy!


> Here is an abstract from an interesting article published on the
> Social Science Research Network about Government in the Harry Potter
> universe:

> This Essay examines what the Harry Potter series (and particularly
> the most recent book, The Half-Blood Prince) tells us about
> government and bureaucracy. There are two short answers. The first
> is that Rowling presents a government (The Ministry of Magic) that
> is 100% bureaucracy. There is no discernable executive or
> legislative branch, and no elections. There is a modified judicial
> function, but it appears to be completely dominated by the
> bureaucracy, and certainly does not serve as an independent check on
> governmental excess.

There _may_ be an executive branch, but it's not been relevant to canon so
it's only hinted at, and that is the Wizarding Congress - there are several
references to historical ones having taken place.

JKR seems to recognise (as the author of the paper doesn't) that in a
society where government is by bureaucracy, then the overarching bodies that
stand outside it (such as the Congress and the Wizenagemot) would be
collective. The principle of collective government also appears to predate
the formation of the MoM in 1693 - before then there was the Council.

> Second, government is controlled by and for the benefit of the self-
> interested bureaucrat. The most cold-blooded public choice theorist
> could not present a bleaker portrait of a government captured by
> special interests and motivated solely by a desire to increase
> bureaucratic power and influence. Consider this partial list of

Though I'd wonder more deeply about the kind of mindset in the WW that would
regard those abuses as being acceptable as the price of keeping safe from
Muggles. Secrecy is clearly so deeply ingrained that it's quite acceptable
for the bureaucracy to have the power to make all sorts of petty and
burdensome decisions (as well as behaving self interestedly and partially).

> Furthermore, Rowling eliminates many of the progressive defenses of
> bureaucracy. The most obvious omission is the elimination of the
> democratic defense. The first line of attack against public choice
> theory is always that bureaucrats must answer to elected officials,
> who must in turn answer to the voters. Rowling eliminates this
> defense by presenting a wholly unelected government.

Do the inhabitants of the WW have any conception of democracy as we
understand it, though. Because we have been brought up with it (and learned
in school history classes about the struggle for democracy and the
franchise), we regard it as natural. I don't see any sign of that in the
books. The transition seems to have been from oligarchy to bureaucracy,
rather than from absolutism to democracy as it was in our world.

I do sometimes have the wry thought of someone from our world trying to
explain something like English constitutional monarchy, the partition of
Ireland, or the result of the 2000 US presidential election to someone from
the WW!

> A second line of defense is the public-minded bureaucrat. Some
> theorists argue that the public choice critique ignores what
> government officials are really like. They are not greedy, self-
> interested budget-maximizers. Instead, they are decent and publicly
> oriented. Rowling parries this defense by her presentation of
> successful bureaucrats (who clearly fit the public choice model) and
> unsuccessful bureaucrats. Harry's best friend's Dad, Arthur Weasley
> is a well-meaning government employee. He is described as stuck in a
> dead end job, in the least respected part of the government, in the
> worst office in the building. In Rowling's world governmental virtue
> is disrespected and punished.

Though by HBP, Arthur has been promoted and has come into a far more
influential position.

But, once again, there doesn't seem to be any conception that the
inhabitants of the WW actually _expect_ virtue from the MoM, they expect it
to keep them safe, in the normal run of life from the Muggles, and in times
of emergency (as now) to keep them safe from terrorists of the Voldemort
sort.

> have. Speculating about the effects of Rowling's portrait of
> government is obviously dangerous, but it seems likely that we will
> see a continuing uptick in distrust of government and libertarianism
> as the Harry Potter generation reaches adulthood.

Can't see it myself. Because there's no independent political activity
outside the bureaucracy, there doesn't appear to be any clear path for
change. If you're going into politics, there's either the Percy route - you
enter the bureaucracy and make your way up the greasy pole, or there's the
Riddle route, you engage in conspiracy with a circle of conspirators with a
view to overthrowing the system in your own advantage. And the risk of
instability is always that the WW's cover would be blown and the Muggles
would find out.

Perhaps we'll see the Ministry getting a severe shock in the final volume,
but no revolutions.

There's a very interesting discussion of politics in the WW here
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html - written before HBP
and not, I think, updated, but well worth a read even so. The author sees
patronage as the main vehicle for politics and while I wouldn't totally
agree with him, I would agree with a lot of it.

hwyl

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri