Confusing debureaucratization with neoliberalism
A few days ago this newspaper published an article by Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal, entitled "Simplify or dismantle: when the EU turns rights into bureaucracy"The first part of the title seems very apt to me: simplify or dismantle. Personally, I lean towards the first option. I also think the author's intention to warn against simply eliminating bureaucracy is clear. However, while the article moves forward, the author generalizes and makes accusations. I've seen this before in certain ideological positions, and I believe this assimilation needs to be undone."
Often in debates, one side applies a disqualifying adjective to their opponent, such as the adjective neoliberalOnce this label has been applied, as if it were a toxin, no further debate is necessary.
I am quite convinced that the rights the author defends are the same as, or very similar to, those I defend. However, I am a detractor of bureaucracy and I refuse to confuse it with a neoliberal option. Does the defense of the environment justify the fact that obtaining an environmental permit or license takes three years? I don't think this delay has improved the environmental health of our country in the slightest. Is it a protection of social rights that grant applications from third-sector organizations are regularly awarded in November, and that the justification for their implementation must be submitted before December 31st? This forces these organizations to finance their activities at their own risk, hoping that their grant will arrive in November.
If we listen to the arguments of those who defend the current state of bureaucracy, we will see that their motivations are not the defense of noble social rights—although they will appeal to them—but rather the defense of their own interests, which, it must be said, are legitimate. It is true that under the guise of reducing bureaucracy lie interests aimed at eliminating rights, but reducing debureaucratization to these interests seems to me a view that distorts its fundamental purpose.
The argument that equates debureaucratization with a reduction of rights can be refuted by reductio ad absurdum. Does the existence of a right, as if it were a license, authorize the use of any procedure, however burdensome, to recognize its exercise? Aren't some processes, despite protecting rights, more efficient than others? Do we believe that the bureaucratic procedures used by our administrations to guarantee many rights are currently fair and necessary? If the answer to this last question were yes, we would, in my opinion, have a problem of insufficient understanding of the inner workings of bureaucracy. If the answer were no, it would mean that it is necessary to reduce bureaucracy to the level that is fair and necessary, which is the level that justifies the public value it provides.
In my opinion, there is currently a significant disconnect between the rights that need to be protected and the processes for recognizing their exercise. Therefore, debureaucratization should not be confused with neoliberalism. On the contrary, if excessive bureaucracy is not eliminated and the administration is not made more efficient, then neoliberalism will indeed follow, but with a chainsaw. Accepting a limitation of bureaucracy to the point of being just and necessary is also a defense of citizens' interests.