The Erosion of Due Process: How ‘Efficiency’ Is Becoming an Excuse for Arbitrary Power
Across governments and institutions, the principle of due process is being quietly eroded. What was once the foundation of fairness has become framed as an administrative burden. Under the banner of “efficiency” and “delivery,” procedures are being bypassed in ways that expand discretion, obscure accountability, and weaken public trust. This article argues that true efficiency in governance cannot exist without procedural integrity- and that the language of speed is increasingly used to legitimise arbitrary power.
Over the past decade, a subtle but dangerous shift has taken place in how governments and institutions understand due process. Procedures once regarded as the foundation of fairness , (open tenders, transparent decision-making, and clearly recorded justifications) are increasingly treated as bureaucratic obstacles. The language of “efficiency,” “agility,” and “streamlining” has become the convenient justification for shortcuts that weaken accountability and invite abuse.
From Process to Performance
Modern administrations pride themselves on “delivery.” Civil servants and ministers alike measure success in terms of speed, output, and visibility. The consequence is a culture that prioritises the appearance of progress over the integrity of procedure.
When decision-making becomes a performance metric, the temptation grows to bypass the very safeguards that prevent partiality, conflict of interest, and corruption. In this environment, due process is recast not as a constitutional guarantee but as an inconvenience.
Emergency as Normality
The pattern is most visible in the expanding use of direct awards and “emergency” procurement frameworks. What began as a legitimate response to crises, from pandemics to national security, has quietly evolved into a permanent mode of governance. Contracts worth millions are now routinely justified on grounds of urgency, while oversight mechanisms are applied post-hoc, if at all. In such cases, the state ceases to act as a neutral guarantor of fair competition and instead becomes an arbiter of expediency.
The Dangers of Administrative Discretion
Efficiency-driven governance invariably expands executive discretion. When rules are loosened to “get things done,” officials are empowered to interpret legality in ways that suit political convenience. This drift erodes predictability, one of the rule of law’s central pillars. Businesses, citizens, and even public servants no longer know which standards will apply, or whether today’s “exception” will become tomorrow’s precedent. The result is a quiet corrosion of trust: not through scandal, but through uncertainty.
The Disguised Cost of Speed
Defenders of streamlining argue that modern government must act quickly in a complex world. They are not wrong — but they often ignore that process and speed are not mutually exclusive. The real issue is why speed is sought. In many cases, it is not to serve the public interest but to avoid scrutiny, forestall challenge, or secure political advantage before accountability can intervene. Once “efficiency” becomes the language of evasion, it ceases to be a managerial virtue and becomes a constitutional vice.
Reclaiming Procedural Integrity
Restoring faith in governance requires a renewed respect for procedure as a moral value, not merely a technical one. Every administrative act ,whether a multimillion-euro contract, a disciplinary hearing, or a zoning decision, is a declaration of trust between citizen and state. That trust depends not on outcomes alone, but on the fairness of the path taken to reach them.
Reforms should begin not with new laws, but with a change of ethos: that legality is not a barrier to efficiency, but its precondition. Where procedures are clear, consistent, and public, decisions can be swift and legitimate. Where they are opaque, no amount of “delivery” can compensate for the loss of confidence that follows.
In the name of progress, governments are forgetting that the rule of law is itself a form of efficiency, one that guarantees stability, predictability, and equal treatment.
When process is treated as expendable, arbitrary power fills the void. The result is not faster governance, but weaker government: quick to act, slow to correct, and ultimately unable to sustain public trust.
The great paradox of modern administration is that the pursuit of efficiency, unchecked by integrity, leads not to reform but to decay.
To defend due process today is not to cling to the past - it is to protect the future from the shortcuts of the present.