Birokrasi, Administrasi, dan Politik (Kerangka untuk membangun demokrasi dalam berbangsa dan bernegara)

Main Article Content

Syamsibar Syamsibar


Bureaucracy has at least three main connotations or meanings: One is the traditional view of the term as defined by Weber and characterized as the Weberian model, referring to any organization of modern society with some ideal characteristics such as unity of command, clear hierarchical lines, division of labor and specialization, record keeping, and merit systems for recruitment and promotion, and finally, rules and regulations to govern relationships and organizational performance. The second meaning of bureaucracy refers to a large organization or institution that is structured with a mission, functions, and processes and with a significant impact on its internal and external environment. A third meaning of bureaucracy, although not widely mentioned in academia, is what sociologists and political scientists refer to as “dynamic” and extends to the military and security institutions of government and government in the public and private sectors. Bureaucracy becomes ugly and evil when it turns into a pathological, dysfunctional and repressive full-scale instrument of exploitation, repression, and genocide. Bureaucratism is a political and dysfunctional behavior displayed by the bureaucracy and must be prevented through reform, training and development of its personnel.

Article Details

How to Cite
Syamsibar, S. (2021). Birokrasi, Administrasi, dan Politik (Kerangka untuk membangun demokrasi dalam berbangsa dan bernegara). JURNAL SIPATOKKONG BPSDM SULSEL, 2(4), 421-437. Retrieved from


Amsden, A. (2007). Escape from Empire. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Farazmand, A. (1989). Bureaucracy, the State, and Revolution in Modern Iran: Agrarian Reform and Regime Politics. New York: Praeger.

Farazmand, A. (1999). Globalization and public administration. Public Administration Review 59(6): 509–522.

Farazmand, A. (2001). Privatization or Reform? Implications for Public Management. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Farazmand, A. (2002). Administrative Reform in Developing Nations. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Farazmand, A. (2004). Sound Governance. Wetport, CT: Praeger.

Farazmand, A. (2007). Learning from the Katrina crisis: A global and international perspective with implications for future crisis management. Public Administration Review 67(SI): 149–159.

Farazmand, A. (2008). Transformation of the US administrative state: From nation-building and institutionalization to globalization and corporatization. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society for Public Admin (ASPA), Dallas, TX, March 7–11.

Farazmand, A. (2009). Building administrative capacity for the age of rapid globalization: A modest prescription for survival in the 21st century. Public Administration Review 69(6): forthcoming.

Frye, R. (1975). Th e Golden Age of Persia. New York: Harper & Row.

Goodsell, C. (1985). Th e Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Islam, R. M. and Farazmand, A. (2008). Perceptions of civil servants toward privatization and development: An exploratory study. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 8(1): 37–52.

Peters, G. (2001). Th e Future of Governing, 2nd edn. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Waldo, D. (1992). Th e Enterprise of Public Administration. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp.