ABSTRACT
The history of administration has been defined as service to some higher authority (Gawthrop 1997, 208). In Western democracy, with its appreciation for positive law and for negotiable authority, political bodies are invested with that highest authority in society. As a consequence of the rationalization process, politics and administration have been regarded as a dichotomy rather than as a continuum. This dichotomy serves analytical purposes but was never intended to reflect reality. The dichotomy reflects a juridical perspective in which law defines politics and administration as clearly different realms. In discussing the reality of the interaction between politicians and civil servants, a more sociological perspective must be adopted. Combined, the juridical and sociological perspectives provide the most complete understanding of government. But over the past five decades, many authors have pointed out that in reality a politics-administration dichotomy is maintained for practical purposes. As Gawthrop remarked:
Hence, from a sociological point of view, it may be considered expedient to recognize different roles. Gawthrop's comment relates to the rhetoric of politicians about big, inefficient, and expensive government that is mainly the fault of bureaucrats. When discussing civil servants as a whole, it is not an image of the poor, helpless bureaucrat who falls victim to the malicious politician that first comes to mind. While recognizing that both groups, politicians and civil servants, have distinct responsibilities, it is also clear that the demarcation between politics and bureaucracy is obscure and, especially at the top or summit of the public realm, probably nonexistent from a sociological viewpoint.
