Loyalty card not enough

WILLIAM James, the philosopher and author, tells us that “a question well asked, is half answered”. Friends and acquaintances who asses the performance of the governing administration, constantly ask why our First Citizen continues to appoint “unsuitable” people to ministerial or any significant public sector post?

The string of under-performers or outright disasters seems to have no end.

Confused by the decision-making processes of Number 1, most inquirers scratch their heads and mostly settle on that now tired phrase: so and so must be a political deployee.

Then they rant and rave about the horrible modus operandi of choosing candidates based solely on political preference.

Few however, seem to ask themselves what their own choices would be based on were they in President Jacob Zuma’s shoes. Or even conduct a comparative study and analysis of how other heads of state reach decisions when picking political officeholders.

But if one does look at, for example, the US, the UK, France or Germany, the approach in choosing cabinet ministers, judges, or any other important national assignments is similar.

With few exceptions, most presidents, aside from making the necessary compromises in political brinkmanship, select people based on one universal principle: loyalty.

Loyalty could mean faithful and unwavering support for one’s principal, dependability and trustworthiness towards a political party, or constancy and devotion to the ideals a leader represents.

But in a nutshell, the most valuable asset in politics is loyalty. And real and absolute loyalty have neither price nor currency attached. Technical skill, although quite important, falls below loyalty because it can be bought or hired. Certainly skill, knowledge and experience are highly prized, but these are tradable commodities in the market place.

Understanding this fundamental feature of political decision-making may put the president’s seemingly bewildering and even mind-boggling choices into a different light.

Of course, some may say that while this approach is possibly standard practice, to increase significantly the public sector executive at a time when the economy was teetering on the edge of a recession is not the standard practice of wise leadership. And it was never going to auger well for the country.

Further, having too many warm bodies that fill seats for which they are either unsuited, or lacking in ability and even imagination, does not contribute to finding solutions to national problems.

The question then, is whether it is prudent, in a country with so many pressing challenges, to appoint people simply on the basis of loyalty, or perceived loyalty, to make a finer point?

And particularly when government imbizos reveal that the most essential element needed for positively turning around “ailing municipalities” is technical skill and experience?

Should our allegiance not be to our country first and foremost, irrespective of our political home? And if so, should we not be doing whatever is required to advance our nation’s well-being and truly serve the needs of all our people?

Considering the parlous state we are now in, should the president not be looking far beyond loyalty and consider, as US President Barack Obama has done, the example set by Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s political genius included the ability to recognise great positive critical qualities in those who were either his antagonists or from different political persuasions and strike working partnerships with people who had previously opposed him.

He also had the ability to mend broken relations and redress wrongs before problems escalated to unmanageable levels.

Lincoln transcended personal bitterness and avoided vendettas and put the greater interest of his country first.