In various third-world countries, it is often seen that the administration functions according to the commands of the ruling party or those who consider themselves powerful.
The question arises: why should the administration follow their instructions? The administration should function like an administration. This is a matter that requires clarification.
A supplementary question here is: who should the administration be run by? Often, it is said that the administrative personnel are supporters of the previous government.
However, such simplifications cannot always be made, because speaking nice words is different from implementing actions in the field. For the government’s programs to be executed, the administration must carry them out. The head of state manages the country through subordinates, i.e., administrative officers and employees.
If they are labeled as members of the previous government, the counter-question might arise: then where are the people from the current government? In fact, civil servants are not supposed to be anyone’s followers.
They belong to the republic. Similarly, there is no room for considering the state apparatus as anyone’s personal property or fiefdom. Therefore, the administration should function under the leadership of the people's representatives or political authority, adhering to rules and regulations.
However, what happens if no political authority is formed for months? In such a case, maintaining law and order in the country would naturally become difficult.
It is unrealistic to expect administrative personnel to always follow the commands of the ruling political leaders. If this were the case, the administration would become stagnant.
For the benefit of the people, they must perform their duties impartially. However, in many developing countries, those in the administration often do not have the environment to work within a clear framework of regulations. Governments come and go, but the administration continues its work as administration.
According to German sociologist Max Weber’s theory of Ideal Type of Bureaucracy (1864–1920), bureaucracy originated from the increasing complexity, vastness, and need for efficiency in the modern state system.
It is an essential component for the continuity and effectiveness of the state system. Through the adherence to rules and regulations, and through impartiality, a form of checks and balances, as well as accountability, is indirectly established within the state.
However, those who rise to power through movements, struggles, imprisonment, and elections, often believe that the administration should carry out their orders. But the constitution or the rules of business do not state this. Rather, there can be disagreements or differences of opinion between political authority and administrative personnel.
In fact, in many developing countries, some come to power through processes that may take a decade to fully study and understand. If they lack the necessary skills or experience, should administrative personnel simply comply with them?
We know that a country's constitution divides the state into three branches: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. After this, the media is recognized as the Fourth Estate. Now the question arises: if everything in the Executive branch functions according to the orders of the ruling authority, what is the need for the other branches?
The need exists so that these branches can function properly too. Otherwise, it is not unusual for confusion and disorder to arise within the system. Therefore, the mentality that the ruling leadership of a developing country can have everything their way must come to an end.
Just as everything cannot be carried out according to one’s personal wishes through the administration, no state can function through threats and coercion. If lessons are not learned from this, these countries will remain stuck in the dark state they are in, with no doubt about it.