Ordinarily, this essay is not supposed to have two parts. But because it was impossible to exhaust my experience of the last few weeks in one piece, I had to segment it into two halves. Today I will dwell on the correlation between merit-based and loyalty-based reward systems when political campaign ends and the winner of an election transitions into governance.
The moment it came to public notice that I had been appointed the Director General of Aka Eze Aka Media Team, there were widespread jubilation in many quarters where people of my generation inhabit. I was shocked by the myriads of congratulatory messages I received from friends and ‘well-wishers.’ Most of these are people who have been advocating for good governance and positive change in the way things are done in the political circles. But what struck me the most was the sentiments of their felicitations. They make it explicitly known through their countenances and pulchritudinal dispositions that it is time for me take a bite of the apple (in Tinubu’s voice). They didn’t bother whether my Principal — Aka Eze Aka has come to make the difference in the Local Government administration or not. It didn’t matter to them, whether Aka will be true to his promises to oscillate his government around Gov. Peter Mbah’s disruptive leadership, which is also a bye product of merit-based recruitment process for those who will serve in his government.
They are already hailing me to high heavens, of course hoping that if I transition into Aka’s administration (as it is usually in practice over the course of history of blackman’s politics), I will “be better off for it.”
However, in reply, I always presented a caveat: “We should learn to allow the winner of any election base all appointments into his/her government on merit and competency. It should not be based on the patronage or reward to those who led his/her campaign.” This has been the bane of our sociopolitical development.
In the past few weeks, I had interesting experiences that have shaped my understanding of political dynamics, particularly concerning the delicate balance between loyalty and meritocracy in government appointments. As we navigated the turbulent waters of political campaigning, I witnessed firsthand the complexities that arise when electoral victories lead to expectations of automatic employment for campaign supporters. This practice, while seemingly a gesture of gratitude, raises critical questions about governance, effectiveness, and the broader implications for public service.
From the onset of the campaign, it became clearer that the energy and enthusiasm of our supporters were instrumental to our success.
No doubt about that.
Volunteers, and dedicated party loyalists rallied ardently, canvassing neighborhoods, organizing events, and spreading our message across various platforms. Of course, everyone loves Aka Eze Aka. Their commitment was invaluable, and it is only natural to feel a sense of obligation to reward such dedication. However, as our Candidate prepares to metamorphose from electioneering campaign mode to the full business of governance, the reality of staffing a functional administration became starkly apparent.
One of the most pressing disadvantages of automatically considering campaign participants or supporters for employment is the potential misalignment of skills and roles. While passion and commitment are commendable traits, they do not always equate to the necessary competencies required for effective governance. A political campaign is a unique environment, characterized by high stakes and emotional investment, but governing is a different beast altogether. It demands a diverse set of skills, including strategic thinking, policy analysis, and bureaucratic navigation, among others.
The expectation that all campaigners should receive some form of appointment could lead to a situation where key roles are filled not by the most qualified personnel, but by those who were simply present during the campaign. This approach can not only undermine the effectiveness of an administration but also foster a culture of entitlement that is counterproductive to the ideals of public service.
Moreover, this practice could breed resentment among those who are more qualified but overlooked in favor of less experienced candidates simply because they were part of the campaign team. Disillusionment can seep into the ranks of a government if individuals feel that their hard work and qualifications are not being recognized. It can lead to a toxic work environment where morale is low and productivity is hampered. The consequence is a government that struggles to deliver on its promises, ultimately impacting the constituents we aim to serve.
Another significant concern is the issue of diversity in thought and experience. Campaign participants often come from similar backgrounds, sharing a common political ideology and perspective. This homogeneity can stifle innovation and limit the range of ideas brought to the table during the decision-making process.
And so, I sounded a caution to those, who, out of their love for me tips me for one lucrative appointment or the other. Akachukwu Eze is not coming into governance to service preexisting status quo ante. He is bringing closer to our people, the Peter Mbah’s brand of impactful leadership characterized by frugal management of public resources, integral infrastructure development, and unprecedented multisectoral upliftment.
Nigeria made significant progress in the past, either sectorally or integrally when our Leaders observed this tenet. Think of Dr. Ngozi Okonji Iweala’s time in our economy, Prof. Dora Akunyili’s stint at NAFDAC, Lamido Sanusi’s tenure at CBN, etc. These were never supporters of any political party or candidate, but they left transgenerational nostalgic legacies.
To actualize this, Udenu people should understand that a new paradigm, far from what used to obtain in Nigerian politics should be adopted. We must come to terms that by prioritizing merit over loyalty, we can create a more effective and responsive administration. It is crucial to recognize that not everyone who participated in the campaign is suited for a government role. Some may excel in grassroots activism but lack the necessary skills for policy implementation or public administration. Others may have strong communication skills but may not possess the analytical capabilities required for data-driven decision-making.
To address this challenge, Aka said in his campaign speech in Udunedem Ward that he would advocate for a rigorous selection process that evaluates candidates based on their qualifications, experience, and potential contributions to the administration. This approach not only helps identify the right people for the job but also sends a powerful message about the value of meritocracy in public service. It underscores the commitment to professionalism and excellence in governance, which should be the hallmark of any administration.
Furthermore, creating an environment where merit is prioritized over loyalty can encourage a culture of continuous learning and improvement. When individuals know that their performance and contributions will be assessed fairly, they are more likely to invest in their professional development and strive for excellence. This, in turn, can lead to a more competent and effective government.
In my experience, the automatic employment of campaign workers has resulted in a concerning lack of institutional knowledge and technical expertise within the government apparatus. Rather than drawing from a deep pool of talented, experienced individuals, the administration is forced to rely on individuals whose primary qualification is their loyalty to the political party or candidate. This can lead to inefficiencies, poor decision-making, and a general disconnect between the needs of the people and the priorities of those in power.
Of course, implementing a merit-based system is not without its challenges. There may be resistance from entrenched political interests, and the process of identifying and vetting qualified candidates can be time-consuming and complex. However, I believe that the long-term benefits of such an approach far outweigh the short-term political costs.
May daylight spare us!
✍️ Jude Eze.
