Chernobyl - from an organizational perspective.

Socialist systems created in the first half of the 20th century emphasized bureaucracy as an instrument for achieving welfare or other ends of the state. Such a bureaucracy is characterized by features like - hierarchy, impersonal rules, graded career, et cetera. It was assumed that such a system would yield economical, efficient and effective results.

Unlike what this idealistic theory would have us believe, we know from our own experience that bureaus deviate significantly from their stated ends. Hierarchies stifle upward and lateral communication, red tape slows down emergency response, self-maximizing bureaucrats risks public interest for their career advancement, and so on.

The link between bureaupathology and Chernobyl nuclear disaster is depicted clearly in the series. For instance, hierarchy made Akimov succumb to domination posed by Dyatlov(his immediate supervisor). In the same way, incentive structures push Dyatlov to pursue risk-taking behavior that is repugnant to the public interest.

A special focus has been devoted to age-old problems in bureaucracy of ‘generalist vs specialist’. Career officials lacking the know-how of technical subjects are put in charge of resolving issues. The scientists - Legasov and Khomyuk - are repeatedly pushed to the wall or undermined by generalists - officials and politicians - concerned about their power & prestige.

The deficiencies of bureaucracies can be plugged if political system is democratic in nature. Elected politicians have an incentive, at least in theory, to put higher value on the interest of their constituency. However, in a one-party authoritarian regime that derived its inspiration from futuristic communism, the urge is to self-preserve rather than to serve the public interest.

Democracies does have an in-built positive bias towards public welfare. Man-made disasters are easily mitigated in democracies. Conversely, where the role of state is detached from welfare of citizens, suffering is more. Besides Chernobyl, examples are plenty - Bengal famine of 1943, Great Leap Forward of China, Cultural Revolution, and so on.

Therefore, the role and nature of state becomes a deciding factor for the fate of its people. An interesting aspect of nature of democratic state is the ability to look beyond criterion of “efficiency” in public policy. When Legasov explain that cost considerations had made nuclear reactor fatally defective, he is underlining the importance of considering values beyond “efficiency” in policy making.

These values distinguishes public enterprise from private enterprise. Whereas the latter has an incentive to create negative externalities, decision making in government goes beyond notions of profit/economy and lies in broader domain of “public interest”. This is the same reason that public servants are expected to behave less like self-interested ‘economic man’ of mainstream economics.

Accordingly, Chernobyl series pays tributes to unsung heroes like firefighters, nurse, miners, foot soldiers, among others. The motivation behind their actions is best summed up by Shcherbina when he calls upon people to perform their duty despite the life-risks “because it must be done”. Indeed, people are driven by ideas bigger than themselves.

This takes one to the centerpiece of the whole series - truth vs lies. Obfuscation of scientific facts by authorities left the concerned scientists as well as some officials exasperated. Legitimate questions were swept under the carpet for the purpose of maintaining position of power. In the end, it is left for Lagosav to finally blow the lid off the heap of state lies that created the disaster.