I’ve lived in France, which pretty much defines “big bureaucracy”, and in no way did it seem less democratic or more despotic than the American government. But even France has nothing on Denmark, in terms of involvement of government; but the Danes are as happy as can be with their governance, and Denmark ranks as one of the least corrupt governments in the world.
Both examples point to what I think is a much bigger factor in determining how non-democratic or despotic a government becomes: the influence of corporate and special interests on government. France, for instance, has public financing of campaigns, so that winners of elections aren’t determined by who can best cater to the moneyed interests. And in Denmark, all of those myriads of public servants are actually out there to serve the public, and so the public is more than willing to give them the financial means to provide decent services.
Here, advocates of “small government” are, ironically, mostly in favor of measures that place enormous political power in the hands of corporations, as witnessed in the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited campaign contributions by corporations. This was greeted with cheers by champions of small government. Now candidates have more to gain by serving corporate interests than those of the public. Not only is this anti-democratic, but it consolidates the growing despotism of money in our government.