On the fairness of bureaucrats: a story not often recognised as a fairytale

Justice. Somehow, we seem predisposed to a sense of justice. Listen to the schoolyard cries: "It's not fair!" From an early age we have a sense of just what is "fair" and what is not.

Perhaps we derive our sense of fairness from our parents, perhaps from our peers; perhaps we are born with it as some sort of Kantian a priori "sense".

Some of us, however, seem to diminish that sense along the way, or perhaps subsume it to the norms of the peer group in which we find ourselves. Thus, office workers might end up with a different "sense" of fairness than military personnel (warning: this is not a scientifically-tested statement).

Take bureaucrats, as a group (no offence intended to individuals). The bureaucratic idea of fairness may be easily described. It is: the unwavering application of a specific rule or procedure regardless of the circumstances.

That is, bureaucratic "fairness" consists of an equality of response to all applicants, regardless of the circumstances of their application. That equality of response is seen as "fair" - everybody is "treated equally".

But, of course, it is not "fair".

What is needed is not equality of response but equality of outcome. And the only way to achieve equality of outcome is to allow the applicant to define what outcome is required. Thus, we assist each person to successfully achieve their own goal. Now that seems fair.

What is needed, in fact, is facilitation by the bureaucracy to assist the applicant in reaching their desired outcome (by the way, I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Civil servants are neither". Guffaw).

The task for governments - and the ideal of good governance for the 21st century - is to shift bureaucracy to a position in which it is a facilitator of community wants, needs and aspirations.

The reason many of us feel that bureaucracy is an obstacle, rather than an assistance, lies in exactly that situation described above: bureaucracy does not respond to us, to our circumstances, to our position. One rule is applied to all, one procedure, one perspective. Flexibility is built out, as it is thought to be a nuisance, unmanageable, unable to be implemented in a world where everyone wants something slightly different.

The reason that bureaucracies insist on a "one-size-fits-all" approach is that they are concerned that they cannot deliver a tailored response to all. The mistake they make is that they are not required to "deliver".

What is needed is not that bureaucrats deliver something to us, but that bureaucrats assist us in achieving our own goals. The difference is in the "locus of responsibility"; it is that old (and previously discussed in this column) difference between "clients" and "cases", between "customers" and "citizens".

When a government defines us as "customers", it believes it must "deliver" us something - a product or a service. When it realises that we are citizens, not customers, it is free to facilitate our desires to achieve our own goals, to let us take the responsibility for the achievement of the desired outcome. We take the responsibility, not the government. We, as a result, feel empowered, not blocked.

Consider the difference between the executive branch of government and the judiciary. What we expect from courts is appropriate responses to crimes against society, within the legislative constraints set by the democratic process. Unlike the civil servants of the bureaucracy, judges have some flexibility to adapt the punishment to the situation, the context. Without that flexibility, civil servants, bureaucrats, have no means of being adaptive, of giving appropriate responses to the situations they encounter. As citizens, we wonder at their inflexibility, their lack of adaptation and appropriate response.

The answer is relatively simple: stop treating us as customers. Stop "delivering us service". Stop measuring our "consumer satisfaction" with the "services that are delivered". The truth is, we are not satisfied. We are tolerant, we are inured, we exhibit "learned helplessness" before the idiocies of our governments.

Our governments do not deliver what we want because they can't and they shouldn't. We can do things for ourselves perfectly well - if you, the government, facilitate us as citizens, help us build our skills, help us build our capacities, help us develop our abilities. Teach us, aid us, foster us, nurture us, exhort us - just don't take on yourselves responsibilities that should be ours.

All of the above does not imply some right-wing, laissez-faire approach to governance. On the contrary. There is a place for support for the unable, support for the less able. Just make sure the support is aimed at clients, not cases. At citizens, not customers.