The Tide front page caption: “Posting of CP on Patronage Worsens Insecurity – Wike Cautions” ( Fri. Feb. 19, 2021), raises several issues with regards to manpower deployment and management of public institutions. Experts in management would prescribe management by objectives (MBO) as one approach whereby specific task is clarified and assigned to those most competent to execute it, with appropriate budget and time given for the purpose. This system of management may be called “task work”, which would mean: perform according to specified guidelines and budget, and give no excuse for failing. Either you perform or get fired!
It is quite good that the Governor of Rivers State, Chief Nyesom Wike, pointed out the issue of patronage in public appointments as being one of the causes of worsening insecurity in the country, but also other sectors where we rarely find effective performances. Bureaucracy as a system of management prescribes definite feature if effective results must be achieved. These include hierarchy of authority structure, division of labour, impersonality of administrative machinery, documentation and codification of rules of engagement, etc.
Most importantly the success or failure of any bureaucratic institution hinges on selective engagement and deployment of staff as a measure to guarantee efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of any organisation. The justification of impersonality in bureaucracy is to ensure that qualitative performance, rather than who the performer is, becomes the deciding factor in staff engagement or deployment. Thus, competence counts.
Studies in the causes of failures in public organisations and institutions have always pointed at “patronage and sinecure” as leading factors. Corruption comes quite behind these two leading factors, because they constitute the starting point and causal factors of all corrupt practices. Patronage is a practice where appointments of deployments are based on personal and political influences, rather than quality or merit. It is more commonly called nepotism, while sinecure is a practice of someone being paid for giving little or no service of equivalent value to the remuneration.
Political opportunism is usually behind all cases of patronage and sinecure, whereby those who enjoy such unmerited opportunity are being rewarded for some favour already done, or expected to be done later. The results usually include diminution of efficiency, effective performances and morale of those who feel that they have been short-changed in the establishment. These are very common phenomena in the public sector of the Nigerian bureaucracy, whereby those at the receiving end of such injustices and malfeasance help themselves in whichever ways they can. The result manifests in the perennial lapses and ineffectiveness common in public services.
More than half of the workforce in Nigerian public services can hardly be tolerated or retained in serious organisations which place emphasis on productivity. Productive service reflects in a high level of willing cooperation among a workforce, whereby tasks are accomplished with speed, satisfaction and minimal cost. There is also the awareness that lapses and ineffectiveness are rarely tolerated or glossed over. You keep your job by working.
Patronage in recruitment, promotion or deployment of staff is not only a breach of the ideals of bureaucracy but also a recipe for indiscipline and low productivity. A patron is not only like a godfather, a support-giver or a sponsor, but many patrons usually have a patronising attitude, expecting perpetual servitude and loyalty from those that they helped once. Like a cult system, beneficiaries of patronage often serve as foot-soldiers and boot lickers of their patrons, with no courage to exercise their personal volition.
Evolution of patronage and sinecure system in Nigeria became glaringly widespread soon after the civil war (1970). A large number of people had access to what they did not deserve by merit, while some people, supported by brute force, cunning and pejorative court affidavits, claimed what they did not have. Much of the malfeasance of that time were overlooked largely because of a growing culture of impunity and patronage. Thus mediocrity and incompetence grew wings and, in some cases, also formed into a system of social anomie which was hardly checked. We are still paying the price.
After years of military rule, politics has tended to take a gangsterist form, pointing towards the masses becoming docile and unable to stand up for their rights. Fear complex on the part of the masses led to the use of intimidation and abuse of human rights and dignity as political weapons of control. The security agencies did not also help matters, for some of the personnel were readily used as tools by power holders. The need for godfathers, patrons and support-givers evolved as a survival strategy.
There is increasing division and apathy between the political elite and the Nigerian masses, resulting in a condescending and patronising attitude towards the poor majority. While the affluent class has little regard for the masses, the poor accuse the elite of being responsible for the plight of the nation through their greed and vaulting ambition. Since politicians would need the votes of the masses during elections, the use of money and thuggery become the means of interactive bargaining. To compensate radical political thugs or foot-soldiers, positions of sinecure have to be provided by power holders.
Coupled with the lingering issue of resource control, the Nigerian political economy tended towards dependence on oil as the main source of revenue and consequently the phenomenon of parasitism. Control of power is a gateway to the control of the economy. The issue of resource control is an extension of a unique Nigerian syndrome whereby those who work hard or produce resources, rarely enjoy the fruit of their labour or resources. The result of this phenomenon include militancy, insecurity, etc.
Inability to address sensitive national challenges has earned the nation internal contradictions which manifest in militancy and insecurity. Rivers State Governor is right to say that posting of police commissioners on patronage worsens insecurity, because the use of such strategy has been responsible for inability of the nation to address present challenges boldly and sincerely. Impartial mechanism drives bureaucracy.
Dr. Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.