Civil Administration as a source of malaise: a critical appraisal of the historical discourses from a political theory standpoint.

Abstract

Due to the existing crisis, some hegemonic ideas about the role of the State, its functions, what should be, and the question of the responsibility of administration, have been refuted. If years before the international institutions and the central Governs insisted on the need to promote the minimum State which is separated from the market, now State has appeared as the necessary guarantor of the financial system. However, that which is supposed to be a contradiction of the older way of thinking should be understand as a narrative continuity of the contemporary policy. An historic genealogic review through the different discursive traditions that make up the meta-discourse of the administration shows that, among the pluralities of ideas which support each narrative tradition, the nodal points of the general discourse of the administration remain the same: consolidation of the capitalism, the naturalization of the liberal democracies as the only possibilities to carry out good governance, the need to legitimate the market as principal political actor, which must be protected. Within this framework, the paper suggests the need to re-think the Science of the Administration though theoretical-political parameters that incorporates the rhetorical good judgement and avoid the possibility of falling into the typical limited conceptions of the vigilant democracy.