Bureaucratization could be said into encompass the process both of the centralization, and expansion and of the professionalization of all institutions, and this happens as much in government as in the other principal structures of power like political parties, trade unions, corporations, the armed forces, and the educational, religious, legal, and medical and other technical establishments, as also what has come to be known as the non-governmental organization. Bureaucracies are only instruments of modern rulers: they are not the rulers themselves. How rulers are chosen is varied; but in most of the world it occurs through some form of election rather than rising to the top of a bureaucracy. The electoral process are not bureaucratic even if they must submit to rulers most often; but the electoral machines like political parties and their supporters are or attempt to be thoroughly bureaucratic organizations, thus those at the top who ultimately rule, reach that position through processes that are not bureaucratic; but they rule through investments that are bureaucratic. These occur alongside what is known as democratization. This appears as a paradox, since it is always assumed that bureaucracy and democracy are opposed in principle. Indeed they are, but they can and do coexist and even reinforce each other. But more, of we understand democracy, not as rule by the people so much as legitimating of rulers by the people through elections, then bureaucracy is fully compatible with it. Further, democracy also implies the active citizen ascending rights in numerous spheres, claiming new rights, forming organizations to promote them, and participating in the political process. Every one of these actions by the active citizen required powerful organization and funding; and even the active citizen furthering democracy acts through a bureaucracy. It is customary to note the process of formation of bureaucracy from about the fifteenth until the eighteenth century in Europe as royal absolutisms imposed themselves against feudal nobilities. However, this was more a process of centralization of power in the hands of the king, not of its professionalization in the manner of a modern bureaucracy. Transformation occurred in the nineteenth century, in Europe, by when the challenge from feudal nobilities and local estates had been overcome, and the modern state accumulated parenting unlimited resources through industrialization. The challenge before the state was to harness and exploit these vast new resources and over newer sources, both material and human. Generating and exploiting material resources took the form of industrialization; doing the same with human resources took the form of social mobilization. Entirely new institution and professions were required for these activities; and the emergence of professional bureaucracies takes place against this background, the first of these were the direct servants of the state, the civil servants and the armed forces. The process was completed in the next wave of reforms in the 1860s and 1870s during the first government of W.E.Gladstone (1867-1874). In stages from 1870, entry into the civil service was to take place through competitive examination, purchase of commissions in the army was abolished; in 1873 seven courts of law dating from medieval times were merged into one court of judicature, and the obviously unprofessional judicial functions of the house of lords were terminated; and in 1871 the Anglican church’s monopoly of teaching parts of oxford and Cambridge was ended. This process was slower in France, despite the French reputation for absolutist states, royal bureaucracies and Napoleonic efficiency. These high levels of professionalism and bureaucracy were attained in Paris, but the province remained in the hands of local interest to a degree greater than in Germany or Britain, although less than in the Mediterranean. Napoleon certainly conceived of bureaucracy as a perfect chain of command in which the central authority issued instructions that passed “swift as an electric current” to subordinates, that is the perfects (like the district magistrates in India) governing the 83 departments (districts), sub-prefects in the argon disseminate, and mayors in the 36,000 communes. The model was of perfect bureaucracy, and the perfect enjoyed ample power of every kind that a government in a modernizing state can posses and hence dispensed patronage as a local potentate.