The main stress of democracy which is the ideal administrative method of modern societies can briefly be defined as the ruling of those elected by the people under their own will, the equality and equal rights for the citizens. The functioning of democracy is possible with the existence of institutions organized with certain rules. Bureaucracy covers this definition and is the main agent for the execution of democracy in an unproblematic way. Furthermore, bureaucracy which implies a form of organization determined by rules and laws in all levels of the state embodies also structures required by the political organization legally holding the power to rule the people. Thought within this context, the harmonious functioning of the structures created by the elected and the bureaucratic institutions consisting of appointees appears to be a vital necessity for the execution of democracy. However, it is possible to state that these institutions bear some structural and functional problems in practice. In general the term bureaucracy which refers to the execution of procedures and actions, valid in a certain administrative system, by authorized and specialized persons, was first used in France in the mid-seventeenth century. The term was derived from the French word “bureau” meaning “office” in English. The other word completing the term “cratie” has its roots in old Greek and means power and domination (Şahin,1998:2). The various approaches to describing the features of bureaucracy diversify the definition of the concept. The first approach defines bureaucracy by stressing the structural features of an organization. In this context we are confronted with a bureaucracy carrying certain characteristics as division of labour, hierarchy and procedure systems. The second approach, which pays more attention to behavioural features, refers to positive organizational aspects such as objectivity, certainty, accuracy, file info and consistency as well as to negative aspects like avoidance of responsibility, paperwork, rigidity, excessive secrecy, unwillingness in the exercise and delegation of authorization (Heady’den akt. Eryılmaz,2008:6,7). Parallel to the definitions related to bureaucracy, a variety in bureaucratic theories can be observed. Hegel, Marx and Weber can be named as prominent figures contributing theoretically to the bureaucratic literature. Another theory contributing to the theories is the elitist theory. In understanding the relationship between politics and bureaucracy and especially between the bureaucrat and the politician, three different approaches come to the forefront. The first and accepted approach is that the political system determines the policy to be applied and the bureaucracy applies the determined policy as demanded. The aspect putting this approach forth is the inspection of the politicians on bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The mechanism is realized with the inspection of bureaucracy by politicians and the obedience of bureaucrats to politicians (Durgun, 2002: 84) and bureaucrats are ideally seen as a ruling staff without political choices, a staff approaching facts impartially and applying every decision made by the politicians (Bayır, 2007:45). The second approach, on the other hand, denies the political-ruling distinction, bureaucracy has both an administrative and political role, and bureaucrats are in general an intrinsic aspect of governance and the policy process. The advocates of this view think that the relationship of politicians and bureaucrats is rational, complementing, interactive and interlocked rather than hierarchic. The fact that bureaucrats play an active role in society and politics contributes to justice, equality and public good (Eryılmaz, 2008: 96). The development of a strong democratic administration within society requires above all the existence of sophisticated, conscious and productive citizens and also a rational, participatory and responsible political construction. The public in a society where democracy is existent as a ruling method refers to right, appropriate and equal treatment in the actions and also to the support of the usage of citizenship rights in terms of democratic rights like liberty, justice, freedom, equality and impartiality (Yıldırım, 2009:103,4). In this context it can be spoken of an existence of a positive and meaningful relationship in the framework of equality and equal rights between democracy and bureaucracy. The fact that bureaucracy has not individual but universal criteria in modern state administrations, that is bureaucratic rules and authority are based on non-personal principles, is in harmony with democracy, which has a claim of considering everyone equal before the law. However, this situation does not always bear the same results. (Mouzelis, 2003: 25-6). On the other hand, the values of democracy are meaningful in terms of preventing the bureaucracy to create a closed group of officials and the decrease of authority of the official staff consisting of appointees. Therefore, democracy which is in favour of an order created by the majority presents a contrast with the thought of creating an elite administrative structure (Öztürk, 2003: 36). The sources transforming bureaucracy to an important power centre are the same sources that make the bureaucracy of what it is and lead to its consideration within society as a legitimate institution in terms of its functions. At this point the knowledge and expertise of the bureaucrats come first into foreground. Bureaucracy as an institution collecting, archiving and managing information holds the information the government needs and the technical expertise needed for the understanding and interpretation of this information (Eryılmaz, 2008: 98). Besides the knowledge and expertise of the bureaucrats being effective in the determination of the policies to be applied, this makes them also pro