Reiteratively and summarily put, patronage appointment has negative effects on democracy and good governance. It undermines merit-based systems, encourages corruption, divides society, and weakens institutions. In fact, to promote democracy and good governance, it is essential to eliminate patronage appointment, and promote transparency, accountability, and merit-based systems.
Over the years, particularly since 1999 when Nigeria transitioned to democratic system of government, our political leaders across the three-tiers of government have literarily been recycling themselves in diverse political positions at every political dispensation, and in turn underperforming, and expectedly failing to deliver because of using the spoils system to make political appointments.
For the sake of clarity, it is expedient in this context to say that Wikipedia in its description of what “Spoils System” is, says “In politics and government, a spoils system (also known as a patronage system) is a practice in which a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends (cronyism), and relatives (nepotism) as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party, as opposed to a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted on the basis of some measure of merit, independent of political activity”.
Ostensibly shedding light to the political jargon, the online encyclopedia goes further to explain that “The term was used particularly in politics of the United States, where the federal government operated on a Spoils System until the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 due to a civil service reform movement. Thereafter, the spoils system was largely replaced by nonpartisan merit at the federal level of the United States.
It went to explain that “The term was derived from the phrase “To the victor belong the spoils” by New York Senator William L. Marcy, referring to the victory of Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828, with the term spoils meaning goods or benefits taken from the loser in a competition, election or military victory”. It further explains that similar Spoils Systems are common in other nations that traditionally have been based on tribal organization or other kinship groups and localism in general.
Given the foregoing, it is expedient to opine that it seems that since 25 years ago when our nation transitioned to a democratic system of government that the winner-takes-all concept of “To the victor belongs the spoils” have been the norm to the detriment of the people. The reason for the foregoing conjecture cannot be said to be unlikely as credentials that resonate in primordial sentiments seem to be the criteria needed by seeming political cabals to consider their people for political appointments.
Thus, merit is blatantly relegated to the background to the detriment of the people who are left to suffer as the “Spoilt dividends of democracy” unarguably belong to them. It is expedient to note in this context that as long as the affiliates of the winning party decide to compensate loyal and faithful members with political appointments they careless if such manner of appointments is the best way forward, and if they would succeed and deliver with such patronage appointments.
In fact, the reason for the foregoing assumption cannot be farfetched as appointing and keeping those who consistently underperform or are not productive, and who exhibit a mindset of mediocrity can have damaging impacts on the overall performance of any institution or government.
Without doubt, Spoils System can lead to mediocrity, and mediocrity can in turn create a perception that under performance is tolerated and can lead to the demotivation of high-performing individuals in the governance structure and creates a very toxic system.
I must confess that the inspiration to express this view came when it was realized that the ongoing government under the leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is seemingly not meeting the expectations of the people, particularly when assessed from the spate of grumblings and protests been exhibited by the people. There is no denying the fact that the drift is worrisome, particularly as the President has not spent a year office. Again, given the president’s resort to patronage appointments since he assumed office, not a few political observers cum HR experts are worried that mediocres might have been given appointments in critical areas that have direct bearings on the lives of the people even as they also affect the collective whole of offices that drives the government, negatively.
In fact, there is the need for political leaders that were appointed by the people to various political positions to eschew the Spoils System of appointment that is popularly called Patronage Appointment, being the practice of appointing people into government positions based on political loyalty and patronage rather than on merit or qualifications. This is as it has become so worrisome in Nigerian democracy that it is undeservedly giving power to the party in charge to give appointment to unqualified party members in government positions that have direct bearings on the collective destiny of the people.
Without doubt, patronage appointment is a practice that has been around for centuries, and it involves the exchange of favors or benefits for political support or loyalty. Although it is often used as a tool for politicians to gain power, there is no denying the fact that it has deleterious effects on democracy and good governance.
For instance, it undermines Merit-Based Systems as it encourages the appointments of individuals, not based on their qualifications and abilities as they are chosen based on their loyalty to the political party or individual in power. This undermines the principles of democracy, which is built on the idea that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed based on their merit and hard work.
For example, more often than not, appointments are given to people based on their political connections rather than their qualifications. Given the criteria adopted for appointments, the tendency to appoint people that are not skilled or qualified cannot be ruled out, and this, as has been witnessed in past political dispensations, can lead to poor service delivery and inefficiency.
In fact, patronage appointment encourages corruption given the fact that political leaders use their power to give out favors or benefits to their supporters, and this leads to a situation where people expect to receive something in return for their support, and politicians use this expectation to enrich themselves. For example, politicians give contracts to their friends and family members, even if they are not qualified to do the job. This results in poor quality work and inflated costs, leading to a drain on the country’s resources.
Besides all the foregoing demerits that are inherent in patronage appointments, there is no denying the fact that it is synonymous “To the Victor Belong the Spoils” or the “Winners Takes All” concept which divides the society. For instance, when political leaders give out favors or benefits to their supporters, they create a situation where some people benefit while others do not. This leads to a situation where people are not treated equally, and some groups are favored over others.
For example, more often than not, politicians give out contracts or jobs to people from their own ethnic group or region. This results in a situation where some people feel excluded and marginalized, leading to social unrest and conflict.
Still in the same vein, patronage appointment, no doubt, weakens institutions by eroding their independence and integrity. When political leaders use their power to influence institutions, such as the judiciary, they weaken the rule of law. This leads to a situation where people do not trust the judicial institutions, and it becomes less effective in its role of promoting democracy and good governance.
For example, when political leaders appoint judges who are loyal to them rather than those who are qualified and independent, this undermines the independence of the judiciary and erodes the rule of law.
Reiteratively and summarily put, patronage appointment has negative effects on democracy and good governance. It undermines merit-based systems, encourages corruption, divides society, and weakens institutions. In fact, to promote democracy and good governance, it is essential to eliminate patronage appointment, and promote transparency, accountability, and merit-based systems.
