No.

Two things to keep in mind here:

1. Being a "Developed" nation implies that a justified and fair procedure exist for any government action. An independent judiciary safeguards such procedures.

2. Governments come and go, but the bureaucracy remains - bureaucrats are the backbone of any government, and no government likes to piss them off. That is why they also often have additional legal safeguards to protect them from political bias (as governments of different ideologies keep changing in a democracy), like clear guidelines on how to punish or dismiss them.

So, in any democracy, if an elected official is unhappy with some bureaucrat, the common procedure is to file a complain through the established procedures. Depending on how the law / rules / regulations are, an official, at worst, can be suspended pending the enquiry. Outright dismissal only happens in very rare case like corruption or any other criminal activity (again, this is rare because "developed" nations also subscribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty").

For the example you cited (of an FBI boss complaining to the President that he couldn't deliver because his subordinated were being lazy), what would realistically happen is that the President would start the process of finding a replacement for the current FBI chief for doing their job poorly. Remember, that it his job to get work done from his subordinate, and not bother the President with insignificant issues. In fact, that is why high-ranking bureaucrats, like an FBI chief, have the powers to take actions against errant officials without needing to get government permission for the same.

(And note that even if any bureaucrat is punished or fired after an official enquiry, they still have the option of approaching the judiciary, and appealing their punishment or dismissal.)

No.

Two things to keep in mind here:

1. Being a "Developed" nation implies that a justified and fair procedure exist for any government action. An independent judiciary safeguards such procedures.

2. Governments come and go, but the bureaucracy remains - bureaucrats are the backbone of any government, and no government likes to piss them off. That is why they also often have additional legal safeguards to protect them from political bias (as governments of different ideologies keep changing in a democracy), like clear guidelines on how to punish or dismiss them.

So, in any democracy, if an elected official is unhappy with some bureaucrat, the common procedure is to file a complain through the established procedures. Depending on how the law / rules / regulations are, an official, at worst, can be suspended pending the enquiry. Outright dismissal only happens in very rare case like corruption or any other criminal activity (again, this is rare because "developed" nations also subscribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty").

For the example you cited (of an FBI boss complaining to the President that he couldn't deliver because his subordinates were being lazy), what would realistically happen is that the President would start the process of finding a replacement for the current FBI chief for doing their job poorly!

Remember, that it is the FBI chief's job to get work done from his subordinate, and not bother the President with insignificant issues. In fact, that is why high-ranking bureaucrats have the powers to take actions against errant junior officials (up to a certain level) without needing to get government permission for the same.

(And note that even if any bureaucrat is punished or fired after an official enquiry, they still have the option of approaching the judiciary, and appealing their punishment or dismissal.)

No.

Two things to keep in mind here:

1. Being a "Developed" nation implies that a justified and fair procedure exist for any government action. An independent judiciary safeguards such procedures.

2. Governments come and go, but the bureaucracy remains - bureaucrats are the backbone of any government, and no government likes to piss them off. That is why they also often have additional legal safeguards to protect them from political bias (as governments of different ideologies keep changing in a democracy), like clear guidelines on how to punish or dismiss them.

So, in any democracy, if an elected official is unhappy with some bureaucrat, the common procedure is to file a complain through the established procedures. Depending on how the law / rules / regulations are, an official, at worst, can be suspended pending the enquiry. Outright dismissal only happens in very rare case like corruption or any other criminal activity (again, this is rare because "developed" nations also subscribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty").

For the example you cited (of an FBI boss complaining to the President that he couldn't deliver because his subordinated were being lazy), what would happen is that the President would realistically happen is that the President would start the process of finding a replacement for the current FBI chief for doing their job poorly. Remember, that it his job to get work done from his subordinate, and not bother the President with insignificant issues. In fact, that is why high-ranking bureaucrats, like an FBI chief, have the powers to take actions against errant officials without needing to get government permission for the same.

(And note that even if any bureaucrat is punished or fired after an official enquiry, they still have the option of approaching the judiciary, and appealing their punishment or dismissal.)

No.

Two things to keep in mind here:

1. Being a "Developed" nation implies that a justified and fair procedure exist for any government action. An independent judiciary safeguards such procedures.

2. Governments come and go, but the bureaucracy remains - bureaucrats are the backbone of any government, and no government likes to piss them off. That is why they also often have additional legal safeguards to protect them from political bias (as governments of different ideologies keep changing in a democracy), like clear guidelines on how to punish or dismiss them.

So, in any democracy, if an elected official is unhappy with some bureaucrat, the common procedure is to file a complain through the established procedures. Depending on how the law / rules / regulations are, an official, at worst, can be suspended pending the enquiry. Outright dismissal only happens in very rare case like corruption or any other criminal activity (again, this is rare because "developed" nations also subscribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty").

For the example you cited (of an FBI boss complaining to the President that he couldn't deliver because his subordinated were being lazy), what would realistically happen is that the President would start the process of finding a replacement for the current FBI chief for doing their job poorly. Remember, that it his job to get work done from his subordinate, and not bother the President with insignificant issues. In fact, that is why high-ranking bureaucrats, like an FBI chief, have the powers to take actions against errant officials without needing to get government permission for the same.

(And note that even if any bureaucrat is punished or fired after an official enquiry, they still have the option of approaching the judiciary, and appealing their punishment or dismissal.)