Document Type : Original Article
Highlights
Relationship of civil servants and political authorities and sphere of powers of both in administration and policy-making is one of main issues of the contemporary governance. In democratic political systems, being elected by general elections is a necessary clause of obtaining legitimacy for all policy- maker authorities; In the other hand, complexities of modern societies, makes necessary the specialized knowledge and expertise in policy making that 'circular' politicians have not, but is the characteristic of those careerists that to have the bureaucratic memory and continuous service for impartial implement of policies is the base of their legitimacy. Although civil servants have such a 'neutral competence' , but the promotion process and appointing them as professional managers is not subject to neutrality. Civil servant for climbing up the hierarchical ladder and decision-making are subject to politicians. But, express stress on political appointment, specially, at low levels of administrative corpse is very destructive to keeping the legitimacy of administrative (and political ) system.
Opponents of the dichotomy argued that it was neither possible nor desirable to separate politics from administration so absolutely. Indeed, they contended that those who advocated such a bifurcation, were not only misleading citizens but deceiving themselves as well. Values, and thus politics, were embedded in virtually all administrative actions and it was preferable to recognize this openly rather than to pretend that administration could, indeed, be neutral. The reexamination of early public administration writings in the 1980s and 1990s revealed that most of the founders had held more nuanced views of the relationship between politics and administration than they had been given credit for. While these findings lent support to critics of the dichotomy, the administrative ground on which the argument was based was also beginning to change.
The increased politicization of the public service is a fact in contemporary government in the industrialized democracies. Many scholars, journalists, and politicians are quite certain that the phenomenon exists, but identifying and measuring it is substantially more complicated,
and more contentious. This article has been an attempt to initiate some more analytic thinking about the nature of politicization.
It is also important to consider the potentially positive features of politicization of the public service. The connotations of the term are almost always negative, bordering on corruption, but we have attempted to point out that there may also be some functional aspects of shifts toward a more committed bureaucracy - it may be more than a necessary evil. In particular, greater political commitment may energize the public service in a way that may not be possible with a more neutral public service.
But it is helpful to have an alternative interpretation. There has been an implicit defining model for political– administrative relationships from the beginning: complementarity model.
The complementarity of politics and administration is based on the premise that elected officials and administrators join together in the common pursuit of sound governance. Complementarity entails separate parts, but parts that come together in a mutually supportive way. One fills out the other to create a whole. Complementarity stresses interdependence along with distinct roles; compliance along with independence; respect for political control along with a commitment to shape and implement policy in ways that promote the public interest; deference to elected incumbents along with adherence to the law and support for fair electoral competition; and appreciation of politics along with support for professional standards.
It is a fact that The politics–administration dichotomy is not given by nature or logic, although it can appear quite natural and logical in some of its conceptualizations, and we have no warrant that it might not pass into disuse and disappear. The dichotomy is not universal either. The existence of a division between political and administrative functions and functionaries seems typical of modern constitutional governments only and alien to earlier and other forms of government. At the same time, the dichotomy is not an arbitrary artificiality that we can easily dispose of. Through a long historical development, it has become embedded in our Western way of thinking about government. Especially during the twentieth century, the dichotomy has been codified in laws and regulations, upheld by court rulings, internalized by public officials.
According to author, We have to transcend the double dilemma and find a third more encompassing rationale for the dichotomy. treating the dichotomy as a constitutional principle serves this purpose. Separating administration from politics and simultaneously subordinating the former to the latter helps to control the tensions between democracy and bureaucracy, creates room for the involvement of citizens, and thus ultimately serves constitutional values such as justice, self-government, and especially liberty. Understood in this way, the politics–administration dichotomy is typical of constitutional democracies but absent in authoritarian states, which systematically violate institutional integrity.
Understanding the dichotomy as a constitutional principle does not imply that a complete and definite separation between politics and administration will ever be established. Upholding the dichotomy is not static but dynamic. It calls for a continuous attempt to keep politics and administration apart and hierarchically ordered.
Conclusion. There is no doubt that politics is not administration and a politician is different with a public servant. Therefore, It seems there is no problem to distinguish and demarcation of politics and administration. Nevertheless, specification of exact frontiers of the two spheres and its cause is not clear. This dichotomy is not founded on a priori logic; but it is a fact in the most of modern states. Therefore, in view of conceptual, institutional and individual actors, there is a separation as well as overlapping between politics and administration that being debated in the article with a descriptive method. According to author, norms specified at a democratic constitution and emphasis it gives to values as justice, democracy, responsibility, self- government and morality provides sufficient evidences for keeping this demarcation and the same time makes a creative balance between the two spheres. Although how to demarcating and specification of points of distinction, overlapping and interaction between the two spheres of ' governing and service' depends on characteristics of constitutionalism and administrative tradition of states.
