
Populists versus bureaucrats
The populists are wrong. As I pointed out at the recent Delphi Economic Forum, far from a sclerotic force destined to strangle innovation and liberty, bureaucracy forms the scaffolding for both. From drafting legislation and issuing permits to composing communications and coordinating crisis responses, bureaucrats carry out the mundane tasks that keep society functioning. Without them, economies would stall, the rule of law would collapse, and political visions would never be realised.
Bureaucracy is, at its core, an exercise in rationality. As US president Woodrow Wilson pointed out, administration demands expertise – which is fundamentally neutral, not ideological – and thus exists outside the turbulent sphere of politics. For Max Weber, an intellectual titan in administrative theory, obedience to the impersonal, rules-based order that bureaucracy represents – rather than to charismatic individuals or entrenched traditions – is a mark of a society's maturity.
But maturity implies patience, which populists notoriously lack. It took EU institutions more than 260 days to get the Recovery and Resilience Facility – a lifeline for struggling EU countries during the Covid-19 pandemic – from proposal to passage. The Artificial Intelligence Act took 1,199 days, and the Asylum Procedure Regulation nearly eight years. While these timelines could undoubtedly be shortened, crafting policies that balance the interests of 27 countries is an inescapably complicated affair requiring careful deliberation. In any case, the main source of delays is not EU bureaucrats, but the European Council's member governments and the European Parliament's elected politicians.
None of this matters to populists. They paint pictures of lumbering giants, like those depicted at the Siphnian Treasury in Delphi. Just as the gods of Mount Olympus – with the help of the mortal Heracles – had to vanquish those power-hungry giants, so, too, must today's populist 'gods' defeat a monstrous bureaucracy that seeks dominion over all aspects of life.
This is the vision that animates the Department of Government Efficiency, established by Trump and led by the world's richest person, Elon Musk. But far from crushing a dangerous foe, DOGE is destroying America's ability to confront the giants that actually threaten it, from climate change to technological disruption. These giants can be defeated only through the kind of disciplined, long-term coordination at which bureaucracy excels.
Ironically, there could be no more compelling argument for the value of measured governance carried out by seasoned bureaucrats than DOGE's reckless gutting of America's state capacity. This has included the decimation of crucial agencies, such as the US Agency for International Development, and programmes ranging from lifesaving medical research to projects supporting teenagers with disabilities.
While DOGE's approach has satisfied the populist hunger for daring over deliberation, it has also required a number of hasty reversals, including halting the firing of hundreds of federal employees working on America's nuclear-weapons programmes. And this is to say nothing of escalating privacy and security concerns, as DOGE staff access sensitive databases with virtually no oversight.
Musk might have made much of his fortune in a sector known for 'moving fast and breaking things,' but the government is not a tech company. As many observers, including veteran Republican budget experts, have warned, DOGE's cuts – driven by ideology and self-interest, not pragmatism and the common good – are jeopardising public welfare. The same goes for Trump's reinstatement of Schedule F, which makes it easier to fire civil servants. This move threatens to politicise the federal workforce, making it less capable, as loyalty is rewarded over merit, and less equipped to fulfil its role as a critical source of continuity across administrations.
The allure of political audacity is undeniable. When Trump issues ultimatums – to universities, trading partners, Nato allies, and others – he projects strength. When Meloni performs a foreign-policy balancing act – courting Trump while championing Western unity – she exudes pragmatism. When French far-right leader Marine Le Pen defies EU financial probes – much to Trump's delight – she appears dauntless. Such acts electrify supporters, replacing feelings of helplessness and stagnation with the thrill of brashness, the exhilaration of disruption and the promise of power.
But good governance demands discipline, not spectacle. The EU's Competitiveness Compass, a strategic framework aimed at strengthening growth and innovation without sacrificing environmental goals, is a case in point. There is only one way to chart a credible path forward that accounts for multiple complex and competing goals – and it involves bureaucratic expertise, not a chain saw.
None of this is to say that bureaucracies are above reproach. The EU's sluggish lawmaking and America's labyrinthine administrative system warrant scrutiny. But the solution is reform, not demolition. Streamlining regulations, as the EU's Omnibus packages seek to do, can enhance the bloc's agility. And measures that guarantee merit-based hiring and protect civil servants from political purges would support US efforts to improve governance.
To defend bureaucracy is not to fetishise red tape, but to recognise the vital role it plays in making our societies work. In the fight against the 'giant' challenges we face, bureaucracy is Heracles, the flawed but knowledgeable ally that makes victory possible. To vilify it is to mistake the servant for the master, risking the very future we seek to reclaim. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Observer
4 hours ago
- Observer
Greek govt calls for EU farm scandal probe
ATHENS: The Greek government on Monday called for a special parliamentary committee to probe a European Union farm subsidies scandal, reportedly involving tens of millions of euros, that has seen at least two ministers put under EU investigation. Government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis said the ruling conservative party would request an investigation into the 27-year operation of the Greek authority for the payment of common agricultural policy aid (OPEKEPE). "Our proposal concerns the period from the establishment of OPEKEPE in 1998 until today in order to investigate the dysfunctions, identify the problems and ensure complete transparency," Marinakis told reporters. An investigation by EU prosecutors has shown widespread abuse of funds at OPEKEPE, which according to the government annually disburses 2.5 billion euros to nearly 650,000 farmers. Reports said prosecutors suspect tens of millions of euros have been siphoned off. The investigation period is mostly under the current government, which came to power in July 2019. But the government argues that the fraud has lasted decades. In nearly 30 years, the Greek state has paid more than 2.7 billion euros in fines, Marinakis said. — AFP


Observer
4 hours ago
- Observer
Britain and Europe are changing together
Many state visits are empty, symbolic acts that have little to no policy content or lasting significance. But every now and then, such a visit changes the shape of international relations. Could French President Emmanuel Macron's recently concluded trip to London be one of them? Macron's three-day trip, the first state visit to the United Kingdom by a European Union head of state since Brexit in 2020, had plenty of pomp and pageantry. But it also focused on policy and politics, which reflects a profound shift in the UK's circumstances since leaving the EU. During the upheaval of the Brexit psychodrama, there was little interest in constructive exchange, and the UK's relationship with Europe remained defined by its lurching departure from the bloc. But nearly a decade on, Donald Trump is back in the White House and has launched a trade war on the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shredded the European security order. And Chinese President Xi Jinping has resorted to threats of economic coercion – a striking reversal from the 'golden era' of UK-China relations proclaimed in 2015. Even more dramatic, perhaps, are the changes in the EU. The big policy initiatives launched during Macron's UK visit reflect the forces that are turning the bloc on its head. First, the EU is moving from a peace project to a war union. For most of its existence, the EU sought peace through economic integration. But Putin's war of Ukraine in 2022 reoriented the bloc towards security – a goal that has taken on greater urgency since Trump cast doubt on the United States' commitment to collective security on the continent. There is broad support for this new orientation. According to a recent opinion poll conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations, many Europeans favour increased defence spending, conscription and the development of a European or national nuclear deterrent. Against this backdrop, Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer took a bold first step towards establishing an independent nuclear deterrent with the Northwood Declaration, in which they agreed that 'there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations.' A second major change is the development of 'securonomics.' The EU economy is under pressure from Trump's tariffs and China's export restrictions on magnets and critical minerals. EU policymakers now talk of de-risking, diversifying and deepening the single market, rather than pursuing free-trade agreements. While the UK has made it clear that it will not rejoin the single market or the customs union, the question is whether it can persuade the EU that it can be counted on to help the bloc achieve its new trade goals, or whether it will be given unfriendly treatment because it is seen as posing a risk to those objectives. Domestic politics in Europe has also undergone a rapid transformation. It has been fascinating to watch Macron – once a poster boy for liberal universalism – reinvent himself as a champion of secure borders and protectionism, while taking a tougher stance on crime. This volte-face has seen mainstream European politicians shift focus towards defending national sovereignty – from Russia, China, Trump, and migration – while they try to contain populist parties such as Marine Le Pen's National Rally and Alternative für Deutschland. That is the backdrop for the ground-breaking deal that Starmer and Macron signed on migration returns. Starmer's approach to Europe is a marked improvement from that of former Conservative prime ministers Boris Johnson (who compared the EU to Napoleon and Hitler) and Liz Truss (who questioned whether Macron was a friend or a foe). Starmer has proved himself, particularly with his deft diplomacy on Ukraine, to be a reliable partner and stakeholder, regaining the trust of EU institutions and member states. One senior German policymaker told me how impressed he was by the UK filling the leadership vacuum created by Trump's disregard for Ukraine. In other words, the UK is widely seen in Europe as being 'part of the team' again. The EU-UK summit in May provided a clear framework for deepening the relationship, not least through a Security and Defence Partnership that paves the way for British participation in European defence programmes. But the UK government has remained far too cautious in other areas. Most notably, Starmer has been careful not to cross the Labour Party's self-imposed red lines: no freedom of movement, no customs union and no single market. Future historians may well wonder why Starmer did not aim higher. The changing international environment offers Starmer a clear opportunity to redraw Europe's political map, which would establish him as one of Britain's most consequential leaders. But to do so, Starmer must convince British voters that today's Europe is a different creature from the one they imagine: a defence community that is more focused on safeguarding the continent than on transcending the nation-state. And he must explain how the UK can help build this new European security order, so long as it banishes the Brexit mindset. As a post-liberal Europe emerges, Britain must stop clinging to the past and seize the chance to shape the continent's future in a way that advances its interests. That requires acknowledging that both the EU and the UK have entered a new era. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025


Times of Oman
9 hours ago
- Times of Oman
US trade 'almost impossible' in case of Trump tariffs — EU
Brussels: EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said on Monday that he believed the US was ready to continue ongoing trade negotiations despite an announcement by President Donald Trump that he would impose 30% trade tariffs on imports from the EU and Mexico from August 1 if no deal was reached. His remarks come amid divisions within the bloc on how to confront the threat, with notably France calling for a hardball approach, while others call for caution with a mind to Europe's continued reliance on the US for defense. What did the EU trade chief say about talks with the US? Sefcovic, who as trade commissioner has been representing the EU's 27 member states during more than four weeks of talks between the two sides, said a deal was still the favored outcome, even while he acknowledged calls from countries like France for the bloc to toughen its stance. In remarks made on arrival for talks in Brussels with bloc ministers, he said the 30% tariff threatened by Trump would make it "almost impossible to continue" trade with the US, which is currently worth €4.4 billion ($5.15 billion) a day. Sefcovic said he and his negotiating team had felt a deal was imminent during the trade talks. "The feeling on our side was that we are very close to an agreement," he said. But he said the turmoil created by the tariff threat should be ended, adding that the bloc was prepared for "all outcomes." "The current uncertainty caused by unjustified tariffs cannot persist indefinitely," Sefcovic told reporters, adding that "well-considered, proportionate countermeasures" were still on the table if no deal could be reached. How might the EU react to Trump's tariffs? European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday delayed — as a sign of good will — a package of retaliatory measures over previous US tariffs on steel and aluminium that was due to kick in on Monday. But diplomats said another set of reprisal measures that could be launched if the 30% tariffs go ahead will be presented to trade ministers on Monday. France's trade minister. Laurent Saint-Martin, said there should be "no taboos" in any retaliatory plans, adding that Trump's announcement meant that the bloc had to reconsider its tactis. "If you hold anything back, you are not strengthening your hand in negotiations," he said at the Brussels talks. "Obviously, the situation since Saturday requires us to change our strategy." Denmark's foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, also called for a firmer approach. "We want a deal but there's an old saying: 'if you want peace, you have to prepare for war'," he said ahead of the talks. Merz says will work 'intensively' for deal German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said the 2 1/2 weeks remaining till the August 1 deadline had to be used to reach a deal. "I will be working on this really intensively," he told German public broadcaster ARD in an interview on Sunday. He said that he, like French President Emmanuel Macron, was in favor of massive counter-tariffs if Trump's threat became reality, but "not before August 1." Merz gave an urgent warning about the consequences for the German economy if no deal was reached. "If that happened, then we could forget about much of our effort with regard to economic policy, because it would overshadow everything and hit Germany's export economy in its core."