A bureaucratic comparison

The criticism of both the United States' political leadership and its extensive bureaucracy over the past month reminds me of something we covered in my "Japan in the World" lecture last semester.

The American bureaucratic system is, for the most part, based not on merit and competency working in civil service, but more upon relationships with those who dole out the jobs. Although this has been painfully apparent during the current administration and the recent issues with FEMA director Michael Brown, it's visible during every presidency and at all levels of government. It's just how our system is set up.

Unfortunately, the system allows individuals to rise to positions they may not be qualified for. According to Wikipedia, Brown "was the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001. After numerous lawsuits were filed against the organization over disciplinary actions, Brown was forced to resign."

In Japan, the system for choosing bureaucrats is much different.

From countrystudies.us:

The University of Tokyo Law Faculty is the single most important source of elite bureaucrats. After graduation from college and, increasingly, some graduate-level study, applicants take a series of extremely difficult higher civil service examinations: in 1988, for example, 28,833 took the tests, but only 1,814, or 6.3 percent, were successful. Of those who were successful, only 721 were actually hired. Like the scholar-officials of imperial China, successful candidates were hardy survivors of a grueling education and testing process that necessarily began in early childhood and demanded total concentration. The typical young bureaucrat, who is in most cases male, is an intelligent, hardworking, and dedicated individual.

By no means am I saying this system is any better than our own. In fact, I don't think it is. It has many of its own problems, including discrimination, corruption and narrow-mindedness. But although many department heads move often, most bureaucrats remain within as single agency for their entire careers, providing a certain amount of expertise in the field.

By looking at different governments and different cultures, we can see where we can improve ourselves.

It's following major events like a natural disaster that we need to consider changes to our system of government. It has been called the "grand experiment" for a reason. There's no reason to think that whatever we have now is the best we can achieve and it's always helpful to look around for new and unique ways of attacking the same problem.

It's obvious that there need to be some changes. We could probably start with requiring the director of FEMA to have some sort of background in disaster relief.