Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

Robert Conquest had three laws of politics. The third law is:

The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
So, I'm giving a call out to anyone who wants to participate. You can post in comments or on your blog. I'll link it here. What I want you to do is:

(1) Choose a bureaucratic organisation.
(2) Name a possible enemy.
(3) Come up with a short scenario as to how/why, or some explanation, about the enemy controlling the bureaucracy. 

Alternatively you can ditch my guide and write about whatever you want, as long as it slightly follows Conquest's third law. Reason need not be used, it is an exercise in brainstorming (who knows maybe someone will post something insightful).  

My contribution:
The Queensland Police is a bureaucracy. A possible enemy of the Police are outlaw motorcycle gangs. Outlaw motorcycle gangs have infiltrated various aspects of the criminal intelligence apparatus, including flipping covert police officers and also placing female double agent intelligence analysts within the bureaucracy to thwart ongoing investigations and operations.
Not to deep, but that is the first contribution. Any takers?  


Dan tdaxp said...

The 3rd law is hilarious!

Jay@Soob said...

The American Drug Enforcement Agency is a poster child for RC's third law. I'm not going to suggest infiltration by it's enemy (drug traffic) but I will say that any success by the DEA is self defeating in that it benefits those they fight. A large scale drug bust impacts supply (but not demand) and translates into more capital for those in the supply side of the drug market.

fabius.maximus.cunctator said...


1) The EU. Probably one of the most bureaucratic organisations in the world today. Makes the Aulic Council (Hofkriegsrat) of Wallenstein`s day look efficient.

2) Dastardly Europhobe Tories. Unilateralist NeoCons. :-)

3)So many examples, so little space here:

a) Foregoing an official language / languages and forcing overpaid multingual lawyers to translate a directive from Hungarian into Greek and then into Danish.

b) Failing to decide whether it is a better sort of free trade area, a recreation of the empire of Charlemagne, or God`s answer to the needs of Jean-Claude Juncker`s ego.

c) Accepting several new members from the former Eastern Bloc without checking on the merest basics of good governance.

d) Letting Italy and Greece into the EUROzone.

e) Assuring Turkey that one day, when the present eurocrats will be safely dead, it will be part of Europe despite the cultural and religious diffences, an appalling human rights record, political uncertainty, increasing islamisation, demographics, geography etc.

f) Blithely postponing all instutional reforms since the 80s.

g) Carefully keeping democratic elements within its constitution to the level Botswana had in 1948 (yep, I know it was called Bechuanland Protectorate then).

Ouch, what a rant. If it is too long, gimme a shout and I ll move it to my place.

Anyhow, I like the hypothesis. Dunno if it works but it s fun.