Fictionalization vs realization in politics and bureaucracy.
[Originally written in February 2019, this essay explores the fictionalized versions of bureaucrats and politicians and how those fictional versions have blended into public desires for fast political action with swift sweeping policy changes.]
The depiction of bureaucrats and politicians in fictional media is almost always negative. Sometime the politician can be the evil protagonist using his (or hers, but generally his) popularity with the naive masses to push an agenda and policy towards some nefarious and well hidden goals. It takes our heroic protagonist to either thwart those goals or expose the politician for who he really is, and oftentimes both. The bureaucrat usually holds an even more minuscule role. Rather than acting as a dutiful civil servant, the bureaucrat of fiction tends to be a minor hindrance in the path of our protagonist. Delaying action due to an unbreakable need to follow the rules and instructions assigned to their post. The bureaucrat of fiction is unable to think for themselves and is almost assuredly wrong for being unable to see the true problem or crisis that needs to be faced.
Why does fiction need to cast these two characters in such a disparaging light? There are some obvious answers: politicians in particular, but bureaucrats too, represent some element of power and are thus less relatable to the average consumer. It’s easier to relate with the reluctant protagonist struggling to solve a problem that the powers that be are unwilling to help with or are actively trying to prevent than it is to relate to the towering politician or the unfeeling cog in the governmental machine. The power angle is particularly useful. Politicians wield power by the nature of their position, while bureaucrats have a certain power but it is tightly defined by their station. The bureaucrat could only be a protagonist by breaking from the bonds of servitude to their rules, laws and regulations. Likewise a politician can only be a protagonist if they are actively fighting to change the system and behaving in a way that other politicians are not.
It may make perfect sense to cast politicians and bureaucrats in these ways in a work of fiction, there needs to be something interesting, something at play in order to engage an audience. But what do these type casts do in regards to shaping the beliefs of their audiences? It’s true at the moment that in many democracies around the world the people have lost faith in politicians and distrust the technocratic actions of those faceless bureaucrats working away in cold grey government buildings. Are our fictional depictions of politicians and bureaucrats the result of this public dissatisfaction or have we accepted the models created by these fictions? It’s probably a bit of both. On the one hand, we’ve all dealt with the impersonal and maddeningly structured nature of bureaucracy. And so too, there is no lack of examples of corrupt politicians using their office for personal and not societal gain. But on the other hand, the vast majority of government workers consider themselves as civil servants, working for the government as a means to serve the public and society in which they live. Many civil servants could be working in the private sector making more money but they choose to serve their countries. And so too do most politicians choose a career in politics, not purely to benefit themselves and their friends, but to enact real positive change in their countries.
These depictions, while easy, do little to help our struggling democracies. Those living in the world’s oldest democracies are becoming increasingly discontent and disconnected from their own governments and political systems. Populist politicians have seen a groundswell of support, oftentimes, because they offer a political platform that is entirely removed from the actual process of democracy. They offer solutions to problems that are imagined. Solutions that are impossible. But this is the type of dreaming big that many voters want. It is increasingly hard to run for election on a platform of gradual change and compromise. When Trump promised a wall on the border with Mexico his supporters were charged up and excited. It's doubtful he would have received as much support in either the republican primary or the general election if he would have campaigned on comprehensive immigration reform and a complex package of border security. Those are real solutions, but they’re not exciting solutions. The general public and voter just don’t have time to make such advanced political decisions. To many in the Republican base, immigration is the number one priority, a wall is big and bold and exciting. They don’t have time or the energy to look into a more nuanced policy, especially not when they are offered something as clear as Trump’s wall.
Trump is an example of a fictional politician, from many Republicans he represents the protagonist gridlock breaker ready to shake American democracy down and create a system for the people. To many Democrats he represents the political antagonist: a corrupt businessman who says whatever he needs to for his base and meanwhile lines his pockets by using the office and has uncertain allegiances. Trump is a fictional president, in a non-fiction setting.
In Brazil the election of Jair Bolsonaro fulfilled the antagonist/protagonist fiction by providing his supporters a corruption buster and his opponents a system wrecker. Trump’s election has been an example to aspiring politicians around the world that the voting populace doesn’t want a real politician they want a fictional one. It’s not hard to see why. Fiction is always more exciting than reality and as conditions get gradually worse but no catastrophe or war breaks out the voting populations are looking for something to be excited about. If a major war were to break out tomorrow the political response would no doubt be towards serious politicians, we need someone who knows how to get things done. But the malaise of dwindling prosperity leads to outlandish solutions to complex problems.
The problem is that we are too demanding of politicians and bureaucrats. We have the fictional version that blends into the non-fictional version and creates dissatisfaction and contempt, because we have the time to think about it. There are plenty of calamities we could be concerned about: climate change, the role of big-tech in society, increasing income inequality, job automatization. But these are difficult problems, complex problems, and most importantly: long term problems. Democracy is poorly equipped to deal with long term problems because voters rarely vote on long term issues. Politicians in office only have so long to pass laws and make policy before they are up for election again. It isn’t impossible, but it certainly is difficult to build the necessary political capital to face long-term complex challenges.
A good work of fiction only has so many pages, so many episodes, or so many minutes to not only present a problem but to offer the solution. Good politicians need time, support, allies, and political capital to engage with real problems. That takes time, the problems we face today aren’t necessarily new and aren’t necessarily clear. We need to view societal and governmental problems through a non-fiction lens, anything else and we’ll just be fulfilling the fictions many a great writer have already produced.
