In any political landscape, the interplay between leaders and those they lead is shaped by the prevailing environment. History shows that societies grappling with unease, economic instability, or external threats often find themselves drawn to the allure of a strongman or autocrat. These charismatic figures rise to prominence by tapping into public anxieties, offering seemingly straightforward solutions to complex problems, and often positioning the existing government as the root of inaction.
While these populist autocrats may amplify existing societal fears for their own gain, their message often resonates with a kernel of truth. People may genuinely question the government’s capacity to address their concerns or alleviate hardships. Governments, by their very nature, are often slow to react decisively. Established procedures, whether legally mandated, dictated by regulations, or ingrained by tradition, necessitate input from diverse stakeholders and coordination across various agencies and governmental tiers. This intricate process involves meetings, public hearings, comment periods, collaborative efforts, compromises, and thorough documentation – all of which consume valuable time.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
One immediate appeal of the populist autocrat lies in their disregard for these lengthy processes. With scant respect for diverse viewpoints or established norms, they bulldoze through bureaucratic hurdles, striving to implement swift solutions. However, this approach is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can expedite responses to pressing issues fueling public anxiety, thereby garnering popular support. On the other hand, this forceful approach undermines the very institutions designed to ensure equitable resource allocation and opens doors to widespread corruption that can be challenging to detect and document.
The bureaucrat guided by principle finds themselves in a precarious position. They are duty-bound to prevent the corrosive effects of unchecked power, yet must be politically astute enough not to obstruct measures that genuinely address public grievances and enjoy popular backing. This delicate balancing act demands more than just rigid adherence to rules; it requires navigating a nuanced path, supporting swift relief for the populace while safeguarding the integrity of institutions and established processes.
The Moral Tightrope of Disobedience: Human Rights and the Bureaucracy
For certain segments of the bureaucratic structure – particularly the military, law enforcement, and intelligence services – the responsibility of ethical followership to political leaders takes on an even greater weight. Herein lies a paradox: these agents of state power must be prepared to wield force, even lethal force when commanded by legitimate political authority, yet simultaneously possess the moral fortitude to disobey illegitimate orders.
In democracies grounded in liberal principles, oaths of service pledge allegiance to the constitution and the defense against all enemies, both internal and external. However, in the event of a coup, whether de facto or overt, competing factions will invariably claim legitimacy, often irrespective of objective reality. How then are military personnel, intelligence officers, or law enforcement agents to discern the true defender of the constitution from the usurper?
The usurper of political power fundamentally violates the very values intended to safeguard individual liberties and collective decision-making, often cloaking their actions in the guise of defending the State while eroding its core tenets. It is crucial to understand the classical meaning of “liberal values” and to distinguish it from attempts to distort and debase its significance. Classical liberal values are the inviolable protections of individual freedoms – the freedom to think, speak, write, associate, assemble, and live without arbitrary governmental coercion. The only justifiable limitations on these rights are those necessary to prevent the infringement upon the same rights of others.
Intriguingly, these fundamental rights, inherent to all individuals within a society, are not fully extended to bureaucrats themselves, or to those entrusted with enforcing laws and protecting national security, in their official capacities. Within these roles, individual rights are necessarily subordinated to the constraints and responsibilities of their service. Imagine the chaos if every government employee freely voiced their personal opinions to the media on policy interpretations or enforcement strategies, or acted upon their own interpretations of laws and regulations. There is inherent value in norms and rules that mandate the systematic development, communication, and execution of government policy positions.
To Resist or To Support? Navigating the Bureaucrat’s Choice
Bureaucrats are well aware of the various mechanisms available to impede policy shifts or their implementation. Morally, this capacity presents another double-edged sword. Employing these tactics to delay or block demonstrably unethical policies can be argued as justifiable. However, in a liberal democracy, this also presents a dilemma. Elected governments are entrusted with formulating policies. If this process is reasonably fair, transparent, and lawful, it is not the bureaucracy’s prerogative to obstruct those policies.
But what recourse is there when an elected government operates with deceit, secrecy, and lawlessness – effectively becoming a proto-tyrannical regime? What then is the bureaucrat’s ethical obligation?
If the political system remains fundamentally democratic, the offending government can be removed from power in the next election cycle. Bureaucrats aware of this may choose to strategically slow-walk, stall, or delay policy approval or implementation to mitigate potential harm. The ethics of such actions are debatable, but the utilization of procedural power is undeniably part of the politically astute bureaucrat’s toolkit. If, however, the government retains power through a fair election, bureaucrats are then faced with a stark choice: comply, or in cases of egregious ethical violation, resign on principle. Continuing to actively sabotage a government re-elected through legitimate means undermines the very principles of representative government they ostensibly seek to defend.
However, if the democratic political process has been hollowed out by an autocratic regime, reduced to a mere facade, the ethical equation shifts dramatically. It is precisely in this scenario that “just following orders” becomes a criminal act, and the very essence of followership is tested at its moral core.
A bureaucrat facing a moral dilemma under an autocratic regime.
It is during that critical window – when the abuse of power becomes evident and documented, yet before power is fully consolidated – that the bureaucrat must act decisively. Once power is entrenched, key positions will be filled with loyalists, impartial adjudication processes will be dismantled or manipulated, media outlets will be controlled or silenced, and political opposition will be crushed.
The bureaucrat who has prioritized career safety throughout their professional life is suddenly thrust into a profoundly moral role, one that is anything but safe. Their deeply held principles, intertwined with political acumen, are essential if they are to navigate the treacherous landscape laid by the proto-tyrant with integrity and survive both politically and personally.
Taking the liberty to de-genderize the powerful words of the renowned playwright, political dissident, and former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, their relevance remains strikingly potent:
Vaclav Havel’s wisdom on individual responsibility in challenging regimes.
**Ira Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader.”**
