It is possible to imagine procedural whistleblowers in Nazi Germany who pointed out that some categories of Jews were being given special treatment, that goods produced by slave labour camps were being diverted for private use, or that there were scams associated with purchase of chemicals used in the gas chambers. Procedural whistleblowers might expose those who protected Jews, such as Oscar Schindler. Since there was massive corruption in Nazi Germany, no doubt such whistleblowers existed.
By contrast, goal-related whistleblowers would have challenged the extermination programme itself. They also might have tried to gum up the works, to make the bureaucracies less efficient in their deadly business.
The lesson from Bauman is that we need to pay at least as much attention to the goals of bureaucracies as to their methods. But challenging goals is especially difficult, since there is no formal way to do so. The procedural whistleblower at least has the option of appealing to rules and approaching appeal bodies that are supposed to administer justice (even though they often fail to act against corruption). The goal-related whistleblower has the more overtly political task of challenging the fundamental direction of the organisation.
In countries occupied by the Nazis, there were many dissidents — but not enough. The tragic fact is that the leaders of the most influential institutions — churches, corporations, scientific organisations — did little or nothing to oppose Nazis plans.
Challenging bureaucracy
Whistleblowers have a slim chance of changing a bureaucracy because they are essentially lone critics of a powerful elite. The only real prospect of change comes through collective action, and even this is likely to be a long and difficult process.
In Schweik Action Wollongong, a group with which I’ve been involved, we examined seven cases of challenges to bureaucracies.[11]
The Movement for the Ordination of Women challenged the Anglican Church patriarchy in Sydney.
Vince Neary blew the whistle on corruption and safety problems in the State Rail Authority of New South Wales.
At the end of the 1800s, the “modernist movement” within the Roman Catholic Church questioned various aspects of church dogma.
In the 1970s, attempts were made to reform the repressive prison system in New South Wales.
Beginning in the 1960s, Dutch soldiers created unions and successfully pushed for better conditions and greater freedoms.
A massive public movement appeared in the 1980s to oppose the Australian government’s plans for a national identity card.
Women organised for a decade to oppose sexual discrimination at the Port Kembla steelworks of BHP, Australia’s largest company.
In each case, we tried to learn lessons from the struggles. Here are our conclusions.
It is extremely difficult to change bureaucracies
Most bureaucratic elites, however corrupt they may be, are never challenged. Bureaucratic elites have enormous power to squash opponents, for example the way the Vatican crushed the Modernists.
The challenges that are made usually aim to change policies or personnel, not the structure of bureaucracy itself. The campaign against the Australia Card didn’t aim to change the Australian government bureaucracies. It had success in stopping the proposed identity card, but the government’s basic goal was achieved through other means.
Sometimes, though, a campaign to change a policy can lead to changes in the bureaucracy. The women’s campaign against BHP hiring practices led to a degree of change in the company, namely a less anti- women working environment. This was a significant change, even if the basic hierarchical relationships remained.
A collective challenge is needed
A lone whistleblower like Vince Neary has little chance of success in changing a bureaucracy. Speaking the truth is seldom a good strategy just on its own. It’s also necessary to mobilise other supporters on the inside or outside.
The idea that bureaucracies are similar to authoritarian states is a useful one. To challenge an authoritarian state requires a careful strategy. Building support is crucial. Courageous individuals are needed to make open challenges, but these have to be planned in ways that build further support. Some of the methods that can be used in mounting a challenge are:
careful documentation of problems;
holding discussions and meetings;
circulating leaflets and publishing letters and articles;
liaising with the media;
building links with outside groups;
using a variety of methods of nonviolent action, from rallies to pickets and occupations.
The Dutch soldiers’ movement carried out its campaigns effectively. By organising a union and operating collectively, the movement accomplished much more than any number of isolated protesters could have. A military bureaucracy is very similar indeed to an authoritarian state, but even states can be toppled through nonviolent action.
