The first thing to observe is that, in any very large organization, and above all in a great state, officials and legislators are usually very remote from those whom they govern, and not imaginatively acquainted with the conditions of life to which their decisions will be applied.  This makes them ignorant of much that they ought to know, even when they are industrious and willing to learn whatever can be taught by statistics and blue-books.  The one thing they understand intimately is the office routine and the administrative rules.  The result is an undue anxiety to secure a uniform system.  I have heard of a French minister of education taking out his watch, and remarking, “At this moment all the children of such and such an age in France are learning so and so.”  This is the ideal of the administrator, an ideal utterly fatal to free growth, initiative, experiment, or any far reaching innovation.  Laziness is not one of the motives recognized in textbooks on political theory, because all ordinary knowledge of human nature is considered unworthy of the dignity of these works; yet we all know that laziness is an immensely powerful motive with all but a small minority of mankind.

Unfortunately, in this case laziness is reinforced by love of power, which leads energetic officials to create the systems which lazy officials like to administer.  The energetic official inevitably dislikes anything that he does not control.  His official sanction must be obtained before anything can be done.  Whatever he finds in existence he wishes to alter in some way, so as to have the satisfaction of feeling his power and making it felt.  If he is conscientious, he will think out some perfectly uniform and rigid scheme which he believes to be the best possible, and he will then impose this scheme ruthlessly, whatever promising growths he may have to lop down for the sake of symmetry.  The result inevitably has something of the deadly dullness of a new rectangular town, as compared with the beauty and richness of an ancient city which has lived and grown with the separate lives and individualities of many generations.  What has grown is always more living than what has been decreed; but the energetic official will always prefer the tidiness of what he has decreed to the apparent disorder of spontaneous growth.

The mere possession of power tends to produce a love of power, which is a very dangerous motive, because the only sure proof of power consists in preventing others from doing what they wish to do.  The essential theory of democracy is the diffusion of power among the whole people, so that the evils produced by one man’s possession of great power shall be obviated.  But the diffusion of power through democracy is only effective when the voters take an interest in the question involved.  When the question does not interest them, they do not attempt to control the administration, and all actual power passes into the hands of officials.