Bureaucrat! A Weberian ideal-typical model on the role of bureaucrats in miscarriages of justice

Max Weber

My original training was as a management consultant. My task is to identify the cause(s) of any problem that arises.  There are usually three possibilities: technical error, human error or sabotage. There is currently a problem in the justice system, as well as the government sector as a whole. I asked myself what was causing the problem. I have come to a decision. It is bureaucrats and it is human error. I do not mean public employees or civil servants. I mean specifically bureaucrats. Weber coined the term in 1921 in chapter 8 of Rationalism and Modern Society . I am not here to critique his masterful work but, rather, apply it. These are his general observations.

According to Weber, bureaucracy relies on:

• “Hierarchical Structure: A distinct chain of command exists where each lower layer is controlled and supervised by the layer above it.

• Division of Labour: Work is split into specialized, routine tasks so employees can focus on their specific areas of expertise.

• Formal Rules and Regulations: Explicit written policies govern behaviour and operations to ensure uniform treatment and consistent decision-making.

• Impersonality: Professional relationships remain detached from personal feelings, eliminating favouritism and bias.

• Merit-Based Selection: Hiring, promotions, and placement rely strictly on technical qualifications, education, and performance.

• Career Orientation: Employment offers long-term stability and security, with advancement tied to achievement and adherence to rules” (AI generated from Weber, 1921).

This is the bureaucratic mindset and, psychologically, is a disaster waiting to happen: the disaster happened. In the following I shall demonstrate why.

The Snail in the Bottle

In 1932, there was the “Snail in a bottle” case, Donoghue vs Stevenson. This, in many respects, fundamentally changed the basic principles of English Law because the subsequent ruling changed Christian Mercy to a “duty of care”. It occurred when Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer and eventually discovered there was a decomposing snail at the bottom. This made her ill, unsurprisingly. The seller decided it wasn’t his fault and nor did the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson (there was no contract between the manufacturer and the consumer). Mrs Donoghue was unmoved and took it all the way to the House of Lords, at that time the home of the Law Lords and they decided that, whatever the circumstances, the manufacturer had a duty to the customer (the Neighbour Principle) to ensure the product was healthy.  Thus, the duty of care was established and a new world began.

This is especially relevant to public employees given the large number in the NHS, never mind the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Police, Local Authorities and, more indirectly, but certainly, in criminal cases, the legal profession, including judges.

Whatever the good or service provided, the provider must take the needs and wishes, never mind their well-being, of the customer into consideration, regardless of being in the public or private domain (and Weber remarks upon the similarity of the two roles).

A bureaucrat is born

So, what exactly are bureaucrats? Max Weber is the first to turn to in his chapter in “Rationalism and the Modern World” (1921). Without repeating it here, he defines it as a hierarchy. Perhaps I could use Darwinian terms: the genus is public employee; and the species are civil servant and bureaucrat. A civil servant is a public employee that shows a duty of care to their customers or clients. A bureaucrat shows their loyalty to the institution and, perhaps cynically, to their pension and they are famously “thick-skinned” (“Stahlharte Gehausung” Weber; ibid): they have hard hearts. The duty of care does not come across their radar. That is not ideal in the NHS or the justice system and is, in hard legal fact, illegal.

Even an alleged offender has the right to a duty of care: he or she may not be guilty. NHS patients certainly do. The general public does, too. However, both in the justice system and the NHS, things are turning out badly. The mental health crisis in Nottingham, currently active with the Calocane case, as well as the maternity scandal in the same town and, then, the Lucy Letby case amongst many, many others. Where is the duty of care in dozens -  if not hundreds of medical staff - gaining access to private health documents? I suggest this is the thick end of the wedge on a spectrum called “gossip”. I notice mental health workers gossip and spread their interest to matters that are none of their responsibility. In fact, conversations with them are more like prosecutions than discussions. It’s their mindset. They believe their mindset is superior, so it can never be wrong, EVEN WHEN OPENLY BREAKING THE LAW! How can this be?

Bureaucrats are not civil servants

The word “blob”, used by Lord Michael Gove as a description of what I suggest is the bureaucracy, has become a common word amongst the public. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and I stand, inter alia, on the shoulders of Max Weber. Prior to Weber (1921) bureaucrats would have been known as scribes, clerks or courtiers. If we take Egypt as the first permanent, i.e. stone-built, culture, the Pharaoh relied on scribes to write the data and viziers or similar to make the decisions.

But it is impossible to understand bureaucrats and bureaucracy if we don’t define it. It is hierarchical and top-down. It is like a monarchy or a corporate entity. The orders come from the top and must be obeyed. Civil servants and bureaucrats are different. Civil servants work for the government and show a duty of care to the public. Bureaucrats are not interested in the views of the public but, rather, feel that the institution is their main loyalty attached, as it is, to a pension. Living in a capitalist-individualist society (McFarlane 1986) of which I approve, incentives are significant, they are the most important thing in directing behaviour, either consciously or subconsciously. In some cases, bureaucrats have statutory powers, such as psychiatrists and the CPS. They have the power to control the public. If the end (protecting the institution) justifies the means (a lack of a duty of care), so be it.

In no way must this be seen as an attempt to attack a group of people. It’s a question of mindset and mindsets can be adjusted, depending on the extent the individual has a specific loyalty to that mindset. It’s simply pointing out the facts that are demonstrated in the record such as Nottingham Mental Health Trust AND Nottingham maternity services. This is no accident. It’s the result of a bureaucracy run by rulebook that they themselves don’t keep to on a significant number of occasions. This is hardly a surprise given the length of time the system has been used with a lack of transparency.

One major problem with bureaucrats is they believe what is written down - if it was written by another bureaucrat. The saying should be: “Whatever you say will be taken down, misinterpreted and used against you in court”. The whole system fights against changing that which has been written. So, even if coerced or misunderstood, if written by a bureaucrat, it’s gospel. If civil servants’ writings are to be doubted, the whole system is brought into doubt. That is an impossibility to the bureaucrat. How can “the Machine” be protected?

The invasion of the graduate class

Thus, the civil service is what the structure is called, but it is inhabited by both civil servants and bureaucrats. Weber clearly defines bureaucracy, but in English, civil service has clear meaning. The first demand is they are educated at university and, second, pass the civil service examinations. Then, the system itself comes into play: confirmation bias (Wason,1960) and groupthink (Janis, 1972); Hofstede,1980/2010).

Since Blair demanded 50% of students go to university (a disastrous idea) the number of potential candidates has massively increased. That puts pressure on graduates to conform. At this point it becomes classic Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1979). The power of the in-group over-rides any interests that may be relevant to the public. With the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) we see the decision of the court is more important than justice to the accused or convicted, as Sean Bw Parker points out in his recent contribution to FAW re his own case: the CCRC rejects 98% of all claims. This is despite the fact that the CPS itself fails in 50% of its own prosecutions (Luther-Smith, FAW), hardly an indicator of bureaucratic success. These matters should always be open to inquiry. If that enquiry is refused, there can only be the question why don’t they want to investigate it? Because the bureaucracy has failed: and it is my strong belief that bureaucrats are promoted on the basis of their willingness to lie to protect the bureaucracy itself and all the pensions that are associated with it.

It goes without saying we need a bureaucracy or something similar, I have discussed this in a previous essay. The strength of the bureaucracy is its very weakness. Top-down information passes down well enough but alternate information struggles to go up the chain and, if inconvenient, can be delayed if not blocked.

The Ideal-Typical Model

Yet another great metaphysical invention by Max Weber was the ideal-typical model. Most people dislike stereotypes, people are plainly not exactly the same, although some totalitarian societies give that impression. However, using the lens of anthropology, there are qualities that define individuals and groups. SIT does point out that in-groups are never as homogeneous as they appear, that is their weakness. England’s willingness to accept out-groups into the culture demonstrates that currently. However, there are group similarities, but they are not all-inclusive; individuals within the group may not fit the stereotype; so Weber thought up the ideal-typical model (ITM), with which I concur. Rather like fuzzy logic, an ITM gives a general idea of what, say, a Japanese person looks like, but allows for divergence. In fact, it was the subjects of authority and bureaucracy which led Weber to rationalise what bureaucracy is. In that sense, given later events, I have run the same rule over bureaucracy and identified two streams of thought in the modern bureaucracy, to wit: civil servants and bureaucrats.

By that token, I can give an ideal-typical model of a civil servant rather than a bureaucrat (both are public employees) to start. A civil servant holds a duty of care foremost in their minds when dealing with the customer, client or patient. Coming from a retail upbringing, I was literally born over the shop, like Margaret Thatcher, I have a list of sayings, No. 1 being “The customer is always right”. This how one should treat a customer. They can do no wrong. If they make an error, it is just that and it is my job to put them on the right track. In the same way, if the supplying civil servant is in error, they should accept it immediately and try to put it right. This creates a happy atmosphere. Patients are comforted, customers reassured and the clientele are assured something is being done. Every person is special and deserves the utmost respect. Under a duty of care, the well-being of the customer is the end to which the means are directed. Their style is Weber’s “charisma”.

Bureaucrat!

Bureaucrats are very different from civil servants and can be identified very quickly, usually by their manner of speech, particularly how they speak, vocabulary and intonation. Legalese is a very popular manner of speech. Bureaucrats tend to be more suit-and-tie oriented, but I think it may be phasing out to less formal wear. The first big sign is mindset. They work by the rules. They make imperative remarks. They tell you what to do whilst couching it in sympathetic intonation (aka passive aggression). They smile while they order you about, even when they have no right to order a non-public employee anyway.  Non-compliance, in the bureaucrat’s mistaken terms, leads the bureaucrats to use their statutory powers to coerce, or the unqualified acceptance of their expertise and authority (NHS consultants are a good example, particularly psychiatrists) to order someone about. Bureaucrats are authoritarians. They are passive aggressive. They brook no opposition and make decisions about you without discussing it with you. Even defence lawyers do this, incredibly enough. They suggest you plead guilty for something you haven’t done because it makes their life easier or fulfils an ulterior local political motive. One motivation that hasn’t been brought up recently: corruption in the Local Authorities. It happened before over building contracts, now it seems to be over political power.

There have, however, been strategies to control bureaucrats: PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act,1984) and most recently, after a struggle, a duty of candour in the so-called Hillsborough Law. PACE introduced the recording of interviews due to criticisms of the reports written up by police officers from memory after, for example, 3-hour interviews of defendants. Lord Carlisle in Parliament brought attention to this in the House of Lords explaining that police claimed they could remember the contents of a 3 hour interview. This seems improbable and after complaints recording was initiated. Active now in Parliament is the “Hillsborough Act” where the police openly lied about the cause of the disaster at the football stadium which caused so many deaths. The police blamed misbehaviour by the fans when, in fact, a police officer opened a gate and allowed hundreds of fans in which caused a deadly crush. Evidence was tampered with and the police “closed ranks”, which is typical of bureaucrats trying to cover-up misconduct.

The closed ranks technique has become so common that a whole “whistle-blower” infrastructure has been built up to allow honest civil servants to complain about their bureaucrat colleagues. It seems incredible that civil servants should be punished by the institution for telling the truth but that’s how it is, and it’s egregious that institutions should cover up their own errors.

Bureaucrats make life “awkward” for people on the wrong side, from their perspective. Intimidation and coercion is used to force compliance. In many cases, bureaucrats develop a “prosecutor complex” where they feel their job is to rid the world of certain types of people, specifically the out-group, i.e. a group that opposes lying and deceit. The bureaucrat uses the rulebook to rid themselves of opposing forces by pulling them up on small offences. However, like Russian apparatchiks and National Socialist party members, the saying “live by the sword, die by the sword” is pertinent, because should a bureaucrat break their own rules they themselves are out. The Japanese Samurai took this very seriously and, should they fall short, they committed suicide.

The common word for referring to bureaucrats in the English speaking world is “red tape”. This describes a situation where things are delayed without any clear reason, at least to the applicant, kicking things into the long grass.

It seems inevitable that I should refer to Sir Kier Starmer who, to me at least, personifies the bureaucratic character. Wooden, poor communication skills, authoritarian manner, a lack of emotional intelligence, the leader instinct, it all fits in, not least the prosecutor complex, given he was Director of Public prosecutions. Even locally, having dealt with the local authority in all its forms, bureaucrats are very easy to spot on the basis I have described. Lacking empathy and insight they just focus on the rulebook which frequently they don’t follow.

In Summary

In a nutshell then, on top of the straightforward social psychological pressures that exist on persons in groups, there are straightforward economic ones. In the case of the collectivist bureaucrat and the capitalist-individualist civil servant and member of the general public, a steady monthly income that arrives in the bank account every month regardless of economic circumstances lead a level of complacency in the bureaucratic method. In the reality of the capitalist-individualist market, things aren’t like that. You have good months and you have bad months and you have average months. This, however, creates a different mindset. The bureaucrat gets his customers regardless. The civil servant realises their job depends on good social relations and works FOR their clientele, as do shop-keepers.

I have elsewhere suggested ways of breaking the ancient mould of hierarchy by using a metaphorical fruit bowl method where information passes up the chain, but this would break the bureaucratic stranglehold (“Pyramids, Fruit Bowls and Rape Gangs”; @EmpowerInnocent on X, May 25^th 2025). They wouldn’t like that.

By Robert Luther Smith

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.

References

Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov. M. (2010) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind. McGrawHill.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Janis, I. (1972) Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. Hopewell, NJ: Houghton Mifflin Company

McFarlane, A. (1989) The Culture of Capitalism. Wiley & Sons.

Tajfel, H. (1970) 'Experiments in intergroup discrimination.' Scientific American. 223: 96-102.

Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979) 'An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.' Organizational identity: A reader, 56-65.

Weber, M. (1921/2015) Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification; edited by Tony and Dagmar Waters; Palgrave Macmillan.