> last year that the U.N. system supported 27,000 meetings involving 240 bodies, and the U.N. secretariat produced 1,100 reports
The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy
> last year that the U.N. system supported 27,000 meetings involving 240 bodies, and the U.N. secretariat produced 1,100 reports
The bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy
Isn’t this why democracy fails? It is exhausting. It is work designed for a paid shill. It is a burden placed on the governed by the government to distance everyone from participating.
It is the shade preceding the darkness that democracy dies in.
What is "this" in the why democracy fails? Are you suggesting that the UN is some kind of democracy?
Bureaucracy
I see it as a preoccupation with the act of voting, in place of actual decision making. Incompetence disguised by paperwork is common feature, especially when the problem feel intractable but there is pressure to "get results".
Rules, protocol and regs are obviously necessary to some extent, but it feels like (in Europe, at least) the map has been confused with the terrain. Overly burdensome protocols are fuel for inaction and hand-wringing and, not very surprisingly, private interests have learnt to take advantage of this (e.g. lawfare)
It is tempting to adopt a "drain the swamp" mentality, but we should remember that swamps are ecosystems too.
The illusion of power coming from voting that stops the reform. But more importantly, the transparency of the process yet opaqueness of the processors both dampens activism/revolt against the system while simultaneously reducing activism/revolution within the system.
The steady hand becomes the ruler.