Thursday, October 27, 2011

The New Administration Class

There is really nothing new about the "new administration class".  In the old days leadership and management simply went to the person with the biggest muscle and biggest club.  The survival of the tribe depended on the 'strong man' and his 'medicine woman' and having an "MBA" didn't add much to the equation. (I believe an MBA might well be highly beneficial but I don't know that an Administrator today would necessarily take advice from any such animal.)
 Subsequent to Agricultural Times the raising of armies occured.   This was the beginning of administration, per se.Jared Diamond in his seminal work Guns, Germs and Steel described the development of agriculture as a necessary means for raising armies because farmers could supply food for many making possible the societal specification resulting in a warrior class who could then enslave the farmers and all others in fact.
Who knows if this has changed?  Confuscian times in the east were equally important administrative times. But mostly Confuscians had to behave with good manners beaurocratically  In the Feudal world the King would grant land to his fellow warriors who would then extract work and taxes from the serfs.  If the warrior was a better killer than manager he would presumably hire someone to manage the lands
In those days brute strength, fighting prowess and loyalty to the leader resulted in administrative leadership.
Yet somehow in the 30's there was this idea that the best manager was someone who had come up throug the ranks or worked in the bottom of the factory. This persists with the English Monarchy sending their sons to the military for training through the ranks.  Administration is hierarchal and based in this warring world on military models despite all said against.
The result of administration is maximizing profit or tax for the crown's benefit, and keeping problems from going to the top so that the leadership if not the head administrator can be freed from dealing with lesser trivial matters which can be solved by lower ranks.
Alot of corporations and historically the sons of business leaders wanted their children, like Prince William today to be a member of the ranks to learn the 'trade'.
In Canada leadership required a person to have skills in the area of which they were minister, hence the minister of agriculture was usually a farmer, the minister of health was a doctor, the minister of mines, an engineer.
It seems that went out. I'm not sure it ever was "in".  The rich man has always been able to have his 'idiot' son in a position of authority.  Often the rich man acquired wealth only to have the family squander it.
In Canada, Allan Rock was the lawyer I remember being made Minister of Health. I don't know he was the first non medical person to be in that position.  It's just that having met him I thought, now why is it the Attorney General is a lawyer when clearly a farmer or a doctor could 'judge' just as well. Leadership in scientific fields was clearly the most benefitted from by knowledge of science but the ruling classes had returned to feudalism and a rotating portofolio. Why is it too that increasingly lawyers have been Prime Ministers and had positions of power. One reason might be that some lawyers see themselves as the new non violent military using their wits to win where generals used their brawn. Generals have, by the way, always thought it was their 'wits' that won wars for at least thousands of years.
 Indeed the idea in government today is that a politician doesn't need to know anything except how to get into power, not disimiliar to the first warrior class.  Then the civil service can be the brains for the brute buffoon.
Today the minister of health is next day the minister of education, next day the minister of agriculture.  But what are the exceptions.  If the minister of churches was always a priest then we'd say there was a likelihood of a 'theocracy'  wherein the clergy ruled.  Today that's not true.
I don't know if knowing pigs makes a better farmer or a better leader in agriculture anymore than knowing medicine makes a better doctor and a better leader in medicine. The world ran well enough when a stupid grunt with strong arm told everyone what to do and killed those who didn't do it their way.
It's just that there's nothing democratic about a tyranny and there's nothing democratic about a theocracy.
I don't know what we have politically but it's evident it's not working very well and yet politics is about the least worst choice since it's never ever about the best choice.
It seems to me that the 'new administration' is nothing more than the 'old administration' which has been around since the first guy figured he could enslave the farmers and everyone else.
With power you can be ignorant of everything and still remain in power.That raises the question then as to whether God need be smart or stupid?  Even world leadership that claimed to be divinely inspired (Nero thought he was God) wasn't all the bright from an historical perspective.
Administration might well be about what you know but more and more it seems it's about 'who' you know.  Loyalty to the throne counts so much that an English Premier is famous for saying "I don't need you to agree with me when I'm right, I need you to agree with me when I'm wrong."
Regardless, I believe God's in charge and as such the world is unfolding as it should.

No comments: