If you happen to share with the DrsC a Harry Potter infatuation, I have found an amazing article for you. It analyzes the first six books with respect to the view they take of government, as represented by the bureaucratic, bumbling Ministry of Magic.
Found in the Michigan Law Review (seriously), and written in 2006 by Benjamin H. Barton, a Tennessee law professor, it is a serious look at the politics of the Potter books, minus book seven which had not been published at the time. Hat tip to Tennessee law prof Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) for the link.
Barton speculates Rowling may well have gotten her negative view of petty bureaucrats as a result of her experiences as a single mom on the dole. And he makes much of something I'd not paid attention to, namely that the people running the Ministry of Magic do not appear to be elected in any way that we'd understand.
Ministers of Magic may or may not run for office, the issue is never dealt with in the books. Fudge certainly acted like courting wizarding good will was important, as did Scrimgeour to a lesser extent. Thus, by inference, they served subject to continuing magical community acceptance, however gained or measured. When Fudge lost that support he was replaced by Scrimgeour; the mechanism by which this happened remains unexplained.
