The Nature, Conditions, and Development of Bureaucratic Herrschaft

The Amt is a Calling and Profession
The Amt is a calling and a profession [Beruf]. First of all, this can be seen by the requirement to complete a prescribed course of studies and to pass subject examinations as a prerequisite for employment. These studies are firmly prescribed and generally require all the prospective Beamte’s working hours for a long period. Furthermore, this can be seen with the inherent “nature of the duty” with respect to the Beamte’s position, by which the inward structure of his relations is defined as follows:

• 
  First, to hold an Amt is neither in legal terms or de facto as possession a source of fees or sinecures, which are exploited in exchange for certain services. Usually, Amt had these privileges in the Middle Ages and even did so until the verge of our own time.
  
• 
  Second, to hold an Amt is not the same as the ordinary exchange of services in return for payment as in work contracts of the free market.
  

Rather, the entry into an Amt, even in the private sector, means to accept a specific duty and loyalty to the Amt [Amtstreuepflicht] in exchange for granting the Beamte a secure existence. For the unique character of the modern loyalty to the Amt, it is essential that the Beamte does not form a personal relationship with the person in power in the manner of vassals [Vasallentreue] or disciples [Jüngertreue], as in the feudal or patrimonial Herrschaft relations. So, at least in its purest form, the Amt serves only an objective and impersonal purpose.
This objective and impersonal purpose, of course, is usually backed by some form of ideas of cultural value, such as “nation/state,” “church,” “community,” “party,” or “business.” These cultural ideas are realized in a Gemeinschaft and glorify, ideologically, the objective purpose of the group. They also serve as a substitute for an earthly or even unearthly personal Ruler. At least in a fully developed modern state, a political Beamte is not considered to be a personal servant of the Ruler. Moreover, today, even the bishop, the priest, or the preacher is no longer seen as a bearer of a purely personal charisma like in times of early Christianity. In those days, a cleric bestowed transcendent means of Salvation to anyone who he deemed worthy and who desired them. In principle, he was accountable only to his Lord and stood? under his divine commandment. In contrast, today the cleric has become a Beamte who serves an objective purpose, despite the partial survival of the old theory. In today’s “Church”, this purpose is objectified and at the same time transfigured ideologically as well.
The Personal Position of the Beamte
In this context, the personal position of the Beamte is framed as follows:

Beamte: Aim to Gain and Enjoy a High Appreciation by People in Power

The modern Beamte, whether in the public or private sector, always aims to gain and usually enjoys a specifically high “Stand-like” social status relative to the governed people. The social standing of the Beamte is guaranteed through regulations defining hierarchical ranking. Political Beamte are protected by specific laws criminalizing insult and scorn of Beamte. These laws protect governmental and churchly offices against contemptuous insults and ridicule.
Usually the highest social standing of the Beamte is found in the old countries when three conditions coincide. First, there must be a high demand for highly specialized administration. At the same time, the social differentiation must be extensive and stable. Lastly, the Beamte have to originate from socially and economically privileged social strata. They might originate from such social strata because Stand conventions bind them, because of the way social power is distributed, or because of the costly training needed to achieve Beamte status. The qualification for an Amt is thus usually bound to the possession of a specific educational certification [Bildungspatente], which is discussed elsewhere [see under “The ‘Rationalization’ of Bildung and Training” later in this chapter pp. XX-XX]. The influence of these Bildungspatente naturally raise the Stand-like aspect in the social position of the Beamte.
In this context, the “Stand-like” position of the Beamte described here reflects explicit recognition by codes and regulation, for example, those in the German military. Here, it states that admission to candidacy for the Beamte career depends on the approval (“by election”) of the Beamte themselves (the officer corps, that is). Similar phenomena that promote a guildlike seclusion of the Beamte are typically found in the patrimonial bureaucracies of the past, especially the prebendal bureaucracies. Undertakings to revive this phenomenon, though in slightly different forms, are by no means unknown in modern times or a rarity in times of a de facto Herrschaft of the Beamte [Beamtenherrschaft]. Such undertakings, for example, played a role in the demands of the strongly proletarianized technical Beamte (“Tretij Element”⁵) during the Russian Revolution.
But the social status of the Beamte is especially low where the demand for trained administration and the importance of conventions of Stände are poorly developed. For instance, this is found in newly settled areas like the United States of America, where there are tremendous opportunities to make economic fortunes and where social stratification is unstable.

The Beamte is Nominated by a Higher Authority

The ideal type of a bureaucratic Beamte is appointed by a higher level of authority. This is in contrast to a Beamte who is elected by the people and is, therefore, no longer just a purely bureaucratic figure. Nevertheless, a formal victory in an election does not mean that there is not a nomination hidden behind the election; for example, when a candidate is appointed by the party bosses. Whether or not there will be an “appointment” or a “true” election depends on how the party’s machinery functions, and not simply on constitutional law. When party mechanisms are effectively organized, the formally “free” elections may either turn into a mere acclamation of the party leader’s designated candidate, or it may (and it does happen regularly) turn into a campaign for votes for one of two designated candidates. This kind of campaign follows preordained rules.
However, appointing a Beamte by popular election always modifies the tightness of the hierarchically ordered subordination. This is because a Beamte called in this fashion, who is elected by the subjects, is inherently independent from higher-ranking Beamte, because he usually derives his position not “from above” but “from below” [the subjects who elected him]. Or at least he derives his position not from the higher levels of authority that are directly placed above him in the hierarchy, but from the party’s power brokers (i.e., the party bosses who also determine the rest of his career). Thus, in his career he is not primarily dependent on his superiors within the bureaucratic administration.
Meanwhile, the Beamte who are not elected but appointed by a Ruler usually function more precisely from a technical point of view. This is because, given the same conditions, there is a much higher probability that purely subject-specific aspects and qualities determined his career trajectory. In contrast, the subjects, being laymen, learn about the extent of a candidate’s technical capacity only in retrospect, and on the basis of the candidate’s actual performance. In the end, the parties appointing Beamte by election typically base their decisions for appointing Beamte on allegiance toward the party boss and not on professional aspects. It does not matter if the freely elected Beamte is designated by the party bosses by creating a list of candidates, or if it is a free appointment by a boss who himself was elected. In fact, the opposition between loyalty and professional aspects are relative.
Basically, the same applies in situations where legitimate monarchs and their subjects nominate Beamte. The only difference is that the influence of allegiance is less controllable. In places where the need for professionally trained administration is gaining importance, such as, at the moment, in the United States, but where party followers deal with free-floating public opinion that is intellectually highly developed and educated, the appointment of unqualified Beamte by the leading party diminishes during the election. Naturally, this is especially the case when the Beamte were nominated by the party boss. However, such a free-floating public opinion is missing in the United States where the immigrants in the cities are herded together as “voting sheep.”
Thus, besides the weakening of the hierarchical dependency, direct election of the chief administrator and his subordinate Beamte usually endangers the professional qualities of the Beamte and the precise functioning of the bureaucratic mechanisms. This is particularly the case in large and difficult-to-oversee administrations.
Well known are the superior qualifications and integrity of the federal judges who were appointed by the US president compared to judges who were elected, although both kinds of Beamte were primarily chosen on the basis of party allegiance.
In America, however, the major transformations in government administrations of big cities, which were demanded by the reformers, essentially originated from the elected mayors.⁶ They worked with an apparatus of Beamte who were appointed. These mayors reigned like “Little Caesars.”
Often “Caesarism,”⁷ as a form of Herrschaft organization, grows out of democracy. In technical terms, its powerful achievement potential rests totally on the position of the Caesar himself who is a trusted individual of the masses (of the army or the citizens) and therefore freed from the obligations of tradition. Thus, he is the unfettered Ruler of a select army of most highly qualified officers and Beamte who he chose himself, free and without having to pay respect to traditions or any other obligations. However, such “Leadership by Personified Genius” conflicts with the formally “democratic” principle of choosing Beamte by election.⁸

Beamte Is a Lifetime Position

For the Beamte, being appointed usually means a lifetime position, at least in the public sector and other closely related bureaucratic organizations. Nevertheless, this starts to occur also in other sectors. The lifetime position is assumed as a de facto rule even in organizations where terminations or periodic transformations occur. Also in private businesses, this social status generally distinguishes a Beamte from a worker. However, this legal or de facto right to a lifetime position does not mean that the Beamte has a right to “possess” his Amt, unlike in many forms of past governance [Herrschaft]. Instead, in places where legal guarantees emerged that restricted arbitrary dismissal or relocation of Beamte—as in the case of our judicial and increasingly also administrative Beamte—these legal guarantees served only one purpose: they guaranteed the strictly objective implementation of the Beamte’s specific duties to the Amt in a manner devoid of personal considerations.
Thus, for such a protected Beamte, the degree of “independence” within the bureaucracy granted by such legal guarantees is not always a source of an elevated social status. But specifically, in a Gemeinschaft that still adheres to ancient traditions and ancient systems of social stratification, often the opposite is the case. That is, the stricter the subordination under the despotism of a Ruler, the more the traditional lifestyle of the Ruler is maintained. In the same manner, the traditional status of the Beamte can increase just because legal guarantees are lacking. This happened, for example, during the Middle Ages when the status of the Ministerialis⁹ [unfree knights] rose at the expense of the free knights, and the status of the royal judge rose at the expense of the people’s judge.
In our German system, it was always easier to remove military officers or administrative Beamte from their positions than an “independent” judge who grossly violated the code of honor or the social conventions of the upper social strata. A judge will almost never be removed from an Amt. Therefore, all else being equal, the ruling strata regard a judge to be less socially acceptable than those Beamte whose greater dependence on the Ruler guarantees a lifestyle befitting the Beamte’s Stand A typical Beamte, nevertheless, seeks and promotes a “right to the Amt,” which guarantees against arbitrary removal from the Amt, in addition to guaranteeing seniority rights as a provision for old age.
However, this aspiration has limits.
A rapid progression toward such a “Right to the Amt” naturally makes it harder to staff the Amt with respect to purpose, usefulness, and technical skills. This hampers the career prospects of ambitious aspirants. The Beamte’s preference of being dependent on peers rather than on socially subordinated subjects results in the fact that Beamte, by and large, do not mind depending on superiors “from above.” For example, fearing an allegedly imminent separation of state and “church,” the current conservative movement among Baden’s clergymen explicitly was created to avoid turning from “a superior in the parish, to a servant of the parish.”

Regular Remuneration for Beamte

The Beamte receives a regular financial remuneration in the form of a fixed salary and a pension after retirement. Principally, the salary is not based on performance as wages are, but is based on Stand, i.e., the Beamte’s specific duties (the rank). Sometimes the salary is additionally based on the length of service. The relative reliability for financial provision of Beamte, and the renumeration by a relatively high social appreciation, makes the position of a Beamte attractive, especially in countries without “colonial” opportunities to make money. These advantages for Beamte allow salaries to be set at a comparatively low level.

Beamte Are Organized into a Professional Track