"De-politicizing administration" is not about reducing democratic oversight, it's about things like cronyism, where every civil institution is run by some party loyalist or other, and when another party comes in, they seek to force out the old guys and put their own party loyalists in their place, without any regards to actual ability or performance. It's an incredibly inefficient process and would usually end up meaning being corrupt, playing both sides, and back-scratching is how you outlast the purges. And cronyists tend to promote other cronyists as their right hand men, meaning entire upper echelons of some departments become corrupt, unqualfied in what they're supposed to be doing, and the competent hard-working types are suppressed and cannot get promoted.
As just one example from America look at Bush's appointment of Michael Brown to run FEMA. The guy had no background in emergency management, it was a purely political appointment without any democratic oversight - he original got the deputy job because he was friends with Joe M. Allbaugh, whom Bush had appointed as FEMA director. Joe M. Allbaugh had been Bush's campaign manager - and also has no background in emergency management. So, you have an incompetent brought in to run something (really a corrupt process of appointing your friends to run things), and he hires all his incompetent pals to flesh out the rest of upper management. More people definitely died in Hurricane Katrina, due to Bush's political FEMA appointees. Incompetents running upper management cost more money and kill people.
Sure there are things to be concerned about, but basic transparency of government hiring is not one of them.