We know that the state is a legal fiction, more precisely, it exists because people have agreed upon common formulas of coexistence, mandatory for all. The state, as a legal fiction, implies an ordered legal architecture. Therefore, it is said that the fundamental law of a state is the Constitution because people have agreed that this act holds supreme legal power, outlining the general principles of coexistence and the general rules of operation from which all state functions, laws, etc., emanate.
From the perspective of the state’s functions, in their wisdom, those who conceived constitutions agreed that, in principle, the powers of the state should be separate. Thus, in most countries around the world, traditionally, we find three main powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. As times change, it is very possible that we may witness the addition of new functions from fields such as the internet, press, etc.
Public institutions are the ones that effectively serve the functions of the state, in the sense of providing public services to citizens, for citizens. They translate conceptual will, outlined by the Constitution and other normative acts, into actual action. The domains covered by these institutions are multiple and evidently require a large number of institutions to fulfil the set objectives.
Most often, institutions are led by people from political parties in power. The logic is quite simple: if your party has managed to obtain the majority votes of citizens, then you have been mandated by them to fulfil the functions of the state with the specificities that set you apart from other parties and on the basis of which you were voted. When I say specificities, I actually refer to doctrines, but I will discuss them in a future article.
If politicians or associates of parties lead the institutions, fulfilling roles of public dignity or management such as presidents, heads of government, ministers, parliamentarians, heads of institutions, etc., the actual work is performed by public servants (here, I also include employees of institutions who are part of the contractual personnel, workers within the defense, intelligence, and public order system, etc.).
Depending on how developed a country is, institutions can be more flexible or more rigid from the perspective of bureaucracy and the mass of officials working within the budgetary apparatus.
From the perspective of how institutions function, those who have concerns to observe aspects related to the efficiency and dynamics of institutions in their mission to fulfil their purpose have pointed out that these institutions could often have even better results if they had a set of internal rules and efficient methods to carry out their functions.
Recognizing the critical role of internal rules and efficient methods in enhancing institutional efficiency, the upcoming section of the article will delve into the diverse management systems implemented in public institutions globally. Through this exploration, we aim to assess their effectiveness in improving institutional activity and achieving the overarching mission of public service.
