Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
An unintended consequence of the abrupt collapse of the USSR was to revive the rift between Rome and Byzantium whose origins are traceable to doctrinal disputes within the Christian Church culminating in the Schism of 1054. The legacy of the mistrust that this divorce engendered accounts for stereotypes which still exists today. None of these pre-conceptions has proved more time-resistant than the perceived dichotomy between divergent patterns of governance in Rome and Constantinopole. Thus, "Roman" as a predicate for administration conveys the image of rigor, integrity, and effectiveness while "Byzantium," by contrast, is often used a s synonym for bureaucratic muddling and obscurantism. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The study of the two systems reveals, quite on the contrary, a remarkable affinity and continuity born of a common past and a shared administrative culture. Although differences exist, they may be explained in terms of changing circumstances, environmental challenges or pressures as well as varying degrees of centralization of power. The implications of all these are self-evident for modern governance and public administration.
INTRODUCTION
An unintended consequence of the abrupt collapse of the USSR was to revive the rift between Rome and Byzantium whose origins are traceable to doctrinal disputes within the Christian Church culminating in the Schism of 1054. Thud, in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, Professor Samuel Huntington revives old stereotypes and fallacies regarding Rome and Byzantium in order to sustain a new cold-war division of Europe, East and West. Only the borders change, approximating those of the Schism.
The legacy of mistrust and lasting animosity that this divorce engendered have marred East-West relations on almost every level. The shadow they have cast on many a field of study accounts for stereotypes which still exist today. None of these pre-conceptions has proved more time-resistant than the perceived dichotomy between divergent patterns of governance in Rome and Constantinople. Thus, "Roman" as a predicate for administration coveys the image of rigor, efficiency, and effectiveness while "Byzantine," by contrast is often cited as a synonym for bureaucratic muddling and obscurantism.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. This study of the two systems reveals, quite on the contrary, a remarkable and continuity born of a common past and...