I know. I’ve been there also. The DMV for instance. There I stand, facing a man or woman who is paid to be nasty…or that’s what it seems like. I come to the conclusion that if I was to read their job description it would say:
It is your function to make the applicant feel ignorant and flawed. Your use of voice volume, facial configuration, and unintelligible language is encouraged. You are not required to know anything about motor vehicles or their use.*
Standing in line for an hour, shuffling papers that turn out to be insufficient, and needing to go to the rest room desperately all add to the unpleasant event. The ultimate insult was the day I was transferring the registration of our vehicles from one state to another and … after an hour in line … was told that the bureaucrat could not lend me his pen and that there were no pens available at his station. I had to go to a vendor in the building and purchase a pen to sign the documents. My frustration overflowed, and the woman behind me saved the day by loaning me her pen to sign the #@<+*& documents.
I have been convinced that the concept of bureaucrat was an American invention. Where else in the world would people get paid to be so stubborn and useless? But this week I stumbled across the word apparatchick in a newspaper article. I had no clue what the word meant, and even when I tried to determine the meaning by checking out the context I was baffled.
I researched the word, however, and discovered that it is a Russian word that refers to government employees who are hired, primarily, through their connections to the “higher ups.” It has nothing to do with their training or skill level. They are people who get a good job because they know the right person or belong to the right party.
It turns turns out that the western meaning of the word apparatchick is not that different. It is used in a negative way to refer to low or middle level bureaucrats who get a job because they belong to the right party, have contributed to someone’s campaign, or know the right person. My suspicion is that the writers of articles like the one I read use the term intentionally to signify their negative attitude toward the person or the concept. I don’t think it’s a word that would be used casually.
Bureaucratic incompetence is one way the government (at all levels) wastes money. It is a way of slowing down the processes, committing errors that have to be corrected, and bringing about a lack of respect for the government among the populace. It may have had the most generous of motives behind it on the part of the upper level person, but the result is anything but generous when it comes to the taxpayer.
In the realm of government reform, the elimination of the apparatchicks from the payrolls of the municipality would go a long way towards such reform. When you stop to think about it, this process has more to do with the higher up person than it does with the low level bureaucrat. It is a favor extended, rather than using the civil service or a similar process. That is an ego action, not an action of a responsible civil servant.
____________________________________________________
*Before I leave this posting I need to stipulate that I know that there are people in all agencies, even DMV, who are qualified and who work hard. I’m generalizing about what it feels like, and that’s always dangerous. Both of my parents were bureaucrats, and they were excellent civil servants.
Graphic Credit: A Perfect World
