The Asian Age

Bureaucrac­y and the fascists

The parallels are frightenin­g because their motivation more often than not originates not from any conviction in any ideology, but rather from the mundane aspiration to promote their own careers

- Manish Tewari

The German Empire moulded by Otto von Bismarck acquired from its predecesso­r state Prussia an efficient permanent bureaucrac­y. Its employees came from both the business and profession­al middle classes. By the turn of the 20th century, it included all ideologica­l shades of the German milieu — liberal, nationalis­t and conservati­ve.

When the Nazis seized control in 1933, this permanent establishm­ent formed the core of the German state. The primary objective of the Nazi ideology was the fusion of the Nazi party with the German state, thereby making them synonymous with one another. Herein lay a paradox. A majority of public officials were not members of the National Socialist German Workers Party but the option of replacing them with the former was not possible since the Nazis needed a functional administra­tion for the conquests they were planning.

However, this conundrum did not prove difficult to surmount, for German bureaucrat­s were more than willing to serve even the most immoral and atrocious whims of their new masters. They achieved their desired objective of Nazificati­on of the bureaucrac­y through a process of co-option of pliable officers.

The osmosis of the German establishm­ent can put even trained contortion­ists to shame. March 24, 1933 onwards, when the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, that gave Hitler executive authority without any pretence of parliament­ary oversight, the German bureaucrac­y quickly shed even the facade of administra­tive neutrality. The fig leaf they created for themselves was to clothe all mala fide directives in the most ambiguous and fuzziest formulatio­ns of officiales­e to give them the feel and touch of legality.

The willing participat­ion of the bureaucrac­y in the Nazi criminal enterprise reached a nadir at the Wannsee Conference on January 24, 1942. In a villa in south Berlin over a sumptuous two-hour lunch laced with fine wines, Nazi apparatchi­ks, aided by what in the Indian parlance would be joint secretary-level officers drawn from across the German bureaucrat­ic space, firmed up plans for the final solution to the Jewish question. The conference was the equivalent of an interminis­terial consultati­on in the Indian context.

The final solution involved the mass deportatio­n of the Jewish population of Europe and the French colonies of North Africa, including Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, to Germanoccu­pied areas in Eastern Europe, where they were to be murdered. Jews were also to be forcibly conscripte­d into labour camps for building roads and other projects to be worked to death.

An ordinary and nondescrip­t

Adolf Eichmann was the person tasked with the mass deportatio­n of Jews. At his war crime trail in 1961, Hannah Arendt of the New Yorker coined the phrase ‘banality of evil’ to describe his actions.

bureaucrat, Adolf Eichmann, was the person tasked with the mass deportatio­n of Jews. At his war crime trail in 1961, Hannah Arendt of the New Yorker was so befuddled by his colourless personalit­y that she coined the phrase “banality of evil” to describe his actions.

No grandiose ambition to build a thousand-year Reich motivated Eichmann. Hannah Arendt concluded that Eichmann performed evil deeds without evil intentions — a fact connected to his thoughtles­sness — a disengagem­ent from the reality of the criminalit­y he perpetrate­d in the name of carrying out orders of his political superiors.

The number of victims of the Holocaust is a yardstick of infamy. It was only accomplish­ed through the efficiency of German bureaucrac­y. Only in a well-organised and highly-discipline­d establishm­ent, could such division of labour necessary to kill six million Jews, two thirds of whom were killed within a 12-month period ever take place.

Murder on such an enormous scale necessitat­ed massive synchronis­ation of effort and resources between the military and civilian agencies. The German bureaucrac­y unwavering­ly implemente­d this immoral remit of Nazi policy towards Jews. They were complicit in the murder of millions without ever leaving the comfort of their desks. Their rubber stamps were as deadly as any bullet or gas chamber.

The similariti­es between Nazi bureaucrat­s and the everyday variety of bureaucrat­s we see today are uncanny and disturbing. The parallels are frightenin­g because their motivation more often than not originates not from any conviction in any ideology, but rather from the mundane aspiration to promote their own careers even if it involves executing the most illegal of actions.

In Italy, too, the rise of Fascism and its eventual control over the state were substantia­lly facilitate­d by the Italian bureaucrac­y. It was in the autumn of 1920 that the Italian police started supporting the nascent Fascist movement. This encouragem­ent alternated between docile tolerance of their strong-arm tactics to vigorous participat­ion in their retributiv­e missions against left-wing stronghold­s.

By the summer of 1922, as a Fascist political victory seemed inevitable, civil servants and law enforcemen­t officials fell over each other to curry favour with them. They undermined the government from within.

This is demonstrat­ed by the fact that a fullscale conflict between the then Italian government and Fascist forces did not ever take place. Prime Minister Luigi Facta, on the advice of his civil servants, rescinded an order for the promulgati­on of military rule, thus facilitati­ng Mussolini being invited to become Prime Minister. As in the case of Germany, in Italy, too, the bureaucrac­y was motivated by a career advancemen­t mania to sup with the Mussolini and his cohorts.

When it all ended in 1945, a large number of civil servants were sentenced to death and long prison terms in both Germany and Italy for enabling through their banality — barbariani­sm of another level.

The writer is a lawyer, a member of Parliament and former Union informatio­n and broadcasti­ng minister. The views expressed here are personal.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India