Political control versus administrative discretion

01/01/2024

In political theory, the so-called modern democracies are said to legitimatise authority through a ladder of delegated powers.

In theory, voters and their communities are the principals; they are regarded as sovereign and vote for representatives who are supposed to carry out their will.

Those representatives become legislators, and it is the job of those with a majority to govern the executive by setting the direction of its travel, agreeing on a set of policies and then directing their agents (public officials) to implement those same policies.

However, because the representatives cannot make every decision, substantial authority is delegated to the agents or officials who are tasked with implementing said policies.

In Aotearoa, our problem has been that not every representative knows how to set the direction of travel or direct the officials. Relatedly, because of the way we have designed our public management system, not every agent or official can be directed. Also, not every representative knows how to govern: some of them want to make every operational decision.

But this is not simply a problem for the political authorising environment. Equally, not every agent or official wants to be directed, and even those who want to be directed cannot get sufficient clarity from the policy advisory system. Also, institutional capability is often mixed, and for a range of reasons, some state agencies struggle to attract the talent and the resources they need to perform.

These are enduring problems.

Political representatives always try to balance autonomy and control. Whether we like it or not, there is a real tension between democracy and bureaucracy.

While the contest between political control and bureaucratic independence is not a modern problem, it takes on renewed importance when political leaders use excessive power to enhance control and when a new political regime takes over.

While Hineraumati is here, I am going to offer six posts with six frameworks that can help us understand what is happening in the space between the political and administrative executive.

I will begin with public service bargains.

I will then move to the purple zone.

The third framework is the concept of the authorising environment.

Then, I will use an institutional theory lens to demonstrate how separate the political and administrative spheres are and how difficult it is for the political executive to direct operational and commercial decisions.

Then, I will move to devolution and what that means for this space: devolution is a concept whose time has come. It is the process of transferring power from the heart of our Westminster model to the regions, communities, iwi and hapū. While it is not quite tino rangatiratanga because the devolved institutions are still products of statute, it is possible that with all the noise in the Te Titiri relationship right now, both sides risk talking past one another.

Finally, I will finish with deliberative democracy. This is the welcomed emergence of the principals—specifically, the voters and the communities they live in—as part of the bureaucracy’s daily work. This is me and you, our whānau and whanui, as policy advisory system actors in our own right, as well as co-designers and co-producers of public policy outcomes.

I am not going to do these in-depth. Consider them an introduction only. They are offered to build a shared understanding so that when people comment on this space, they use common kupu. Who knows it might also assist us in the korerotia on how far beyond Westminster we really are.