Have you ever wondered why various administrations, both historical and contemporary, repeatedly appoint officials who lack the necessary qualifications or competencies for key government positions?
The ongoing review of the courtesy resignations, triggered by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s desire to implement meaningful reforms, surely raises questions about the decision-making processes behind these appointments and the potential influence of political connections, personal loyalties, and systemic issues within government institutions.
What reasoning contributes to the persistence of such choices despite a public outcry, and how do they impact governance?
Several intertwined factors contribute to this persistent pattern, the most obvious of which is political patronage. Individuals often find their way to high-ranking positions not because of their qualifications but due to their ties to influential politicians or political parties. The practice results in a “reward system” where loyalty and allegiance take precedence over merit-based selection.
The financial contributions made by political patrons to candidates who emerge victorious serve as a clear indicator of the level of influence these patrons hold. Such contributions are not merely charitable donations; they are a calculated investment aimed at securing favorable policies, access to decision-makers, contracts, and other benefits that can significantly impact their interests.
Personal loyalties and relationships also play a significant role. Leaders may choose to work with friends, family, or long-time associates, which can create a network of individuals who may not have diverse backgrounds or expertise. This insular approach can lead to a lack of diverse perspectives in thought and decision-making.
The structure of government institutions can also perpetuate the appointment of unqualified individuals. The bureaucratic processes involved in hiring and promotion within the public service can be opaque and influenced by internal politics rather than objective evaluations of competency. This inefficiency can discourage qualified candidates and leave the door open for individuals with less experience or knowledge.
Sometimes, the priority is not just qualifications but alignment with specific ideological goals. Appointing individuals who share a leader’s vision or policies may outweigh the need for expertise.
Public sentiment can also drive the appointment process. Leaders may select individuals who resonate with their supporter base, even if those individuals lack the necessary qualifications. This can lead to populism, where charm and electability are valued over actual competency.
When decision-making bodies lack sufficient expertise — particularly in areas such as economics, law, transportation, and communications — the consequences may include ineffective responses to crises, economic instability, social unrest, and, at times, confusion.
The cumulative effect of repeated unqualified appointments undermines the institutional integrity of government agencies. As inefficiencies become entrenched, they create a cycle of poor performance, further entrenching obstacles that prevent qualified individuals, especially those from the private sector, from entering government service.
As many people view the government environment as rife with corruption and unethical behavior, honest individuals may fear that they would be compromised or pressured to engage in activities that conflict with their values.
Despite their competence and integrity, some may feel that their ability to enact meaningful change will be limited by bureaucratic red tape and political maneuvering, thus diminishing whatever impact they might make.
There can be a stigma attached to working in top government positions, with controversies arising from time to time. Those in these roles face public scrutiny and criticism, making it challenging for their families and loved ones to support them.
That is why you shouldn’t be surprised if leaders end up recycling the same individuals in the same roles. There ain’t no takers.