Bureaucracy and Commicracy

Bureaucracy and Commicracy: Desk-Rule versus Commissioning-Rule in the Architecture of Power

BY: OMOLAJA MAKINEE

Political systems are not defined merely by who governs, but by how governing is performed. At the deepest level, systems of rule are expressions of epistemology—how knowledge is treated—and anthropology—how human worth is valued.

Bureaucracy and commicracy represent two fundamentally different answers to these questions. Though both are official systems of rule, they operate on opposing assumptions about authority, expertise, participation, and social worth.

If bureaucracy may be described as desk-rule, commicracy is best understood as commissioning-rule. The difference is not semantic but civilisational.

1. The Academic Meaning of Bureaucracy: Rule by Desks

The term bureaucracy originates from the French bureau (desk or office) and the Greek kratos (rule or power). Literally, bureaucracy means rule by desks—a system in which authority is exercised through offices, files, procedures, and credentialed officials.

Max Weber famously defined bureaucracy as a rational–legal system characterised by:

  • Hierarchical authority.
  • Fixed rules and procedures.
  • Division of labour.
  • Specialised expertise.
  • Impersonality in decision-making.

In theory, bureaucracy promises efficiency, predictability, and fairness. In practice, however, it produces a distinct political condition: decisions are made by those who sit at desks, rather than those who live with the consequences of those decisions.

Desk-Rule as a Mode of Governance

Bureaucracy operates on a model analogous to contracting a labourer without participating in the task itself. The contractor specifies what must be achieved but relinquishes all influence over how it is done. The labourer—now elevated as the “expert”—controls the method, pace, and interpretation of the task, while the contractor becomes a passive recipient of outcomes.

Translated into governance:

  • Citizens contract the State through elections or representation.
  • Officials and experts determine policy design, implementation, and interpretation.
  • Citizens are reduced to service-users, not co-governors.
  • Accountability flows upward within the bureaucracy, not outward to the people.

This is the essence of desk-rule: authority resides in position, not participation.

2. Bureaucracy as a System of Social Hierarchy

Beyond administration, bureaucracy functions as a mechanism of status-consistency. Credentials, ranks, titles, and institutional proximity to power determine social worth. Those closest to the desk—civil servants, technocrats, managers, professionals—acquire disproportionate authority over society’s direction.

This produces several structural outcomes:

  • Knowledge is monopolised by experts.
  • Participation is restricted to procedural compliance.
  • Labour is hierarchised rather than equalised.
  • Citizens internalise inferiority relative to institutional authority.

Thus, bureaucracy does not merely organise work; it legitimises class hierarchy by transforming expertise into dominance and procedure into power.

3. The Philosophical Meaning of Commicracy: Commissioning-Rule

Commicracy derives from commission—to entrust, mandate, or jointly authorise—and kratos meaning rule. In literal interpretation: Commission-rule. If bureaucracy is rule by desks, commicracy is rule by commissioning.

Philosophically, commicracy rejects the idea that authority should be detached from those affected by it. Instead, it asserts that those who commission a task retain moral and co-governing authority over both its process and outcome.

Commissioning-Rule as a Mode of Governance

Commicracy resembles a different contractual relationship. When a labourer is commissioned under commicracy:

  • The contractor specifies not only the goal, but also the acceptable methods.
  • The labourer contributes expertise, but does not monopolise authority.
  • The commissioning party remains actively involved throughout the process.
  • Outcome legitimacy depends on alignment with collective instruction.

Applied to governance:

  • Citizens are not merely electors, but co-authors of policy.
  • Advisory Bodies experts advise on policy implications, but do not rule.
  • Institutions and Commissions execute, but do not dominate.
  • Authority flows from collective commissioning, not positional hierarchy.

In short, commicracy governs the process of duty, not just its completion.

4. Commicracy as Co-Governance, Not Anti-Expertise

A common misinterpretation is that commicracy rejects expertise. On the contrary, commicracy re-situates expertise.

Under bureaucracy:

  • Expertise equals authority.
  • Authority overrides popular instruction.

Under commicracy:

  • Expertise equals contribution.
  • Authority remains with the commissioning body (citizenry-electorates or working-groups).

Experts become servants of collective intent, not rulers over it. This preserves technical competence while eliminating technocratic domination.

5. Desk-Rule versus Commissioning-Rule: A Structural Contrast

Bureaucracy (Desk-Rule)

  • Bureaucrats—the public officials appointed in a bureaucracy,
  • Authority flows downward from office,
  • Process controlled by professionals,
  • Citizens are recipients of decisions,
  • Legitimacy derived from procedure,
  • Hierarchy justified by credentials,
  • End-goal prioritised over lived impact.

Commicracy (Commissioning-Rule)

  • Commicrats—the public officials appointed in a commicracy,
  • Authority flows outward from the people,
  • Process co-governed by stakeholders,
  • Citizens are active decision-makers,
  • Legitimacy derived from participation,
  • Equality of worth precedes expertise,
  • Process and outcome are equally governed.

6. Impersonal Procedure versus Interpersonal Procedure: The Human Fault-Line Between Bureaucracy and Commicracy

One of the most decisive yet least examined differences between bureaucracy and commicracy lies not in law or structure, but in procedure. Procedure is where power becomes lived reality. It is the space where citizens encounter the State, where labour meets governance, and where social value is either affirmed or erased. Bureaucracy and commicracy diverge most sharply at this procedural level—one is impersonal by design, the other interpersonal by necessity.

A. Impersonal Procedures of Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is architected around impersonality. Decisions are deliberately stripped of human context in favour of standardisation, uniformity, and procedural neutrality. The bureaucratic subject is not a person but a case, a file, a reference number, a tag, or a category.

Impersonal procedure manifests through:

  • Forms that replace conversation.
  • Eligibility criteria that replace judgement.
  • Protocols that override lived circumstance.
  • Automated or semi-automated decision chains.
  • Appeals processes that are procedural rather than dialogical.

While impersonality is often justified as fairness, its real function is distance. By removing interpersonal engagement, bureaucracy shields decision-makers from moral accountability. No individual is responsible—only “the system.”

Economically, this produces:

  • Wage classifications divorced from human need.
  • Labour evaluation based on credential rank rather than effort or capability.
  • Resource allocation governed by abstract thresholds.
  • Institutional indifference to contextual hardship.

Socially, impersonality reinforces class hierarchy. Those fluent in bureaucratic language—forms, credentials, compliance—navigate the system with ease, while others are excluded not by law, but by procedural alienation. Class, in this sense, is reproduced not by force, but by administrative friction.

B. Interpersonal Procedures of Commicracy

Commicracy reverses this logic entirely. Its procedures are inherently interpersonal, because commissioning requires relationship. One cannot commission without dialogue, clarification, and mutual recognition.

Under commicracy:

  • Procedures are conversational before they are codified.
  • Decisions emerge from consultation, not submission.
  • Rules are interpreted with human presence, not abstraction.
  • Institutions remain answerable to those they serve.
  • Process is transparent and participatory.

Interpersonal procedure means situated governance—decisions made with awareness of context, consequence, and collective intent.

Economically, this transforms labour relations:

  • Work is recognised as human contribution, not bureaucratic classification.
  • Economic security is tied to participation, not credential status.
  • Disputes are resolved through dialogue before escalation.
  • Expertise advises rather than dominates.

Socially, interpersonal procedure dissolves class boundaries. When individuals are engaged as participants rather than processed as cases, hierarchy loses its psychological foundation. No desk stands above the person; no office speaks without accountability to human presence.

C. Humanity as a Procedural Outcome

Crucially, humanity in society is not sustained by moral declarations but by how systems operate daily. Bureaucracy erodes humanity not through cruelty, but through indifference. Commicracy shores up humanity not through sentiment, but through structured interpersonal engagement.

In an impersonal system:

  • Dignity is incidental.
  • Equality is formal but hollow.
  • Justice is procedural, not experiential.

In an interpersonal system:

  • Dignity is embedded in process.
  • Equality is lived through participation.
  • Justice is relational and corrective.

D. The Eradication of Class Through Procedure

Class systems persist not merely because of wealth disparity, but because of procedural inequality. Bureaucracy creates class by:

  • Centralising interpretive authority.
  • Privileging credentialed access.
  • Detaching authority from lived experience.

Commicracy eradicates class by:

  • Distributing and decentralising interpretive authority.
  • Valuing participation over position.
  • Anchoring governance in human interaction.

When procedure itself is interpersonal, class hierarchy cannot stabilise. There is no elevated desk from which power flows downward—only commissioned roles accountable to the collective.

7. Social Consequences: Control versus Equal Worth

Bureaucracy stabilises society by enforcing compliance. Commicracy stabilises society by cultivating consent. Where bureaucracy requires surveillance, enforcement, and administrative coercion, commicracy relies on:

  • Shared responsibility.
  • Transparent deliberation.
  • Collective ownership of outcomes.

This shift has profound implications for economic order, labour dignity, and social cohesion. Under commicracy, no role is inherently superior; all contributions are commissioned as necessary functions within a shared system of social, economic or moral worth.

8. Commicracy as the Antithesis of Desk Alienation

Modern societies suffer from what may be called desk alienation: decisions affecting daily life are made by distant offices insulated from lived realities. Commicracy directly addresses this crisis by collapsing the distance between governance and experience.

It restores:

  • Governance dignity to ordinary citizens.
  • Moral accountability to institutions.
  • Functional balance between expertise and populocracy.

Conclusion: Two Civilisational Logics of Rule—Procedure Is Destiny

Bureaucracy and commicracy are not merely administrative models; they are competing philosophies of human organisation.

Bureaucracy says: “Trust the desk. The system knows better.”

Commicracy says: “Trust the people. The system must obey collective instruction.”

Both are official rule. Both involve structure. But only one recognises that authority without participation is domination, and that governance without commissioning is merely control.

The true conflict between bureaucracy and commicracy is not ideological, but procedural. One treats humans as variables in a system; the other treats systems as tools for human coordination.

Bureaucracy governs by removing the human most affected from decision-making. Commicracy governs by institutionalising the human most affected within decision-making. And it is precisely at this procedural level that commicracy restores social humanity, equal worth, and economic justice—without chaos, without sentimentality, and without class.

In an age of institutional distrust, technocratic overreach, and democratic fatigue, commicracy offers not chaos, but a higher order of coordination—one rooted in equality of worth, shared responsibility, and co-governed duty. It does not abolish desks. It simply refuses to force the people to kneel before them.

Back to: 👇

Commicracy