State of the Bureaucracy
Then there's my favorite example: The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater.
I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.
Barack Obama's quip on complex red tape was one of the few points to really stick in my mind from the State of the Union address, aside from the unnecessary number of ovations. The promise of ‘cutting the red tape&lrquo; is such a common one from elected (or electable) officials that Wikipedia takes a special note of it.
The big problem with these situations is that changing something can often be more deadly than leaving it the same - inertia is powerful, and objects in motion tend to stay in motion. More than that, most of the legislation was put in place for a good reason in the first place and, like a giant clockwork mechanism, care should be taken before reaching in and taking a piece out.
Some might suggest that taking it all out and building it up from scratch might make the system considerably more efficient, a claim with might well be true, but I'm rather wary of such an approach for a number of reasons:
- The stress and complications of the transition would be extremely great. In the UK, it would essentially mean burning several hundred years of precedents, and rebuilding every ruling in our legal system from the ground upwards. I'm certain that the lawyers would be up for the challenge of resetting every single precedent, and that there might even be a social trend to get your names in the new editions of the law books.
- The structure would be defined by the ruling party. Strangely, if it were to happen, now might be the best time for the UK, with the balance of power appearing to be rather tenuous, and ever side being forced to make some concession. And, from what I understand, there is a similar mismatch of power in the United States Congress. However, this will naturally mean that it would be the most laborious and, therefore, least likely time for it to happen.
- The line between old wisdom and enlightenment and new innovations would almost certainly be lost in a major overhaul; the lack of understanding in how and why a system built up over hundreds of years actually works is disconcerting, but rather inherent: the elements of the old system that would be kept would most likely turn out to be the wrong ones.
- Finally, the risk of losing it all together. As it was stated by Eugene McCarthy
The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.
This idea was also the key point in a series of works often known as "The Tactful Saboteur" written by the legend that is Frank Herbert, where a special bureau slows the workings of a government that had freed itself from red tape - its own government, which was passing legislation so fast that all meaning to the law making process had been lost. Although the work is purely fantastic, the threat is there: one of the great pillars of freedom in this country is the fact that the system does have inertia - no one government ever has the power to change everything. It's the damping on our democratic pendulum
This said the system is clearly a mess - even in the circles actually within Government, such as Gerry Adams MP being unable to resign his seat. But what can actually be done about it?