Across continents and cultures, across democracies and dictatorships, across political systems that claim sophistication and those that claim to be developing, a troubling pattern appears to be consolidating itself in recent years. It is the steady elevation of loyalty over and above competence in public life. It is the quiet but determined patronage of loyalty in place of merit. It is the growing assumption that fidelity to a leader, a political party, a sect, or royalty actually matters more than the ability of a public officer to think clearly, administer effectively, and deliver measurable results for the common good. This developing trend is not good at-all.
In the United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump, critics have frequently argued that public appointments reflect personal loyalty more than institutional experience. In the United Kingdom, particularly during the tumultuous years of Brexit under Boris Johnson, accusations of rewarding allies and sidelining dissenters had gained traction. In Eastern Europe, governments like that of Viktor Orbán in Hungary had been accused by observers of reshaping public institutions in ways that privileged loyalists. In authoritarian regimes like that of Kim Jong Un in North Korea, loyalty has long been the supreme qualification for survival and advancement. Across large parts of African, Asian, and Latin American countries, allegiance to political parties and ethnic or religious proximity often trump demonstrable expertise.
No one is saying that loyalty to legitimate authority is inherently evil. Loyalty can be a virtue. It can foster cohesion, reduce sabotage, and build trust within teams. In moments of crisis, leaders naturally look out for dependable associates, people they can trust. But when loyalty becomes the primary criterion for public appointment, when it eclipses competence, it transforms from virtue to vice. It ceases to be a stabilizing force and becomes instead a corrosive one. Public office is not supposed to be private property. It should not be a reward for political service rendered during campaigns. It should not be an inheritance to be distributed among friends, family, party faithful, or ideological allies. Essentially, public office is a trust. It is an instrument through which societies manage health systems, defend borders, regulate markets, educate children, build infrastructure, and protect their vulnerable members. When these roles are filled with individuals chosen mainly for their obedience to the leader rather than for their expertise, the consequences are rarely abstract. They are tangible, measurable, and quite often, tragic.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that when states decline, it is not usually because of external aggression as it is of internal decay. Institutions weaken when critical positions are occupied by those unwilling or unable to challenge flawed decisions by the authorities. And for that reason, when loyalty is prized above competence, honest advice becomes dangerous. Independent thought becomes suspect. Expertise becomes an inconvenience. The result is groupthink, policy blunders, and an echo chamber around those at the top of the hierarchy.
Of course, it is not uncommon for defenders of loyalty-based appointments to argue that an elected leader deserves a team that is aligned with his or her vision. It is true indeed that political leadership involves the implementation of a mandate. All the same, alignment should not mean incompetence. One can share ideological commitments and still possess technical skill. The danger arises when loyalty becomes the sole or overriding criterion, and when opposition, even constructive opposition, is seen or treated as betrayal.
Take for example what happens when a health ministry is led by someone whose primary qualification is political loyalty rather than medical or administrative knowledge. In times of pandemic or public health crisis, delays in decision-making, miscommunication, or even incompetent resource allocation can cost lives. When finance ministries are headed by individuals who lack economic literacy but pride themselves on impeccable party loyalty, fiscal mismanagement can plunge nations into debt-traps and inflationary spirals. When security agencies are commanded by loyalists who prioritize regime survival over national safety, the state’s legacy to manage the country’s legitimate force becomes compromised.
This development is, however, not confined to politics alone. In religious institutions, loyalty to a pragmatic leader often outweighs theological depth or pastoral competence. Clergy or administrators who question internal excesses could be marginalized, while compliant or loyal ministers are promoted. The faithful, who expect moral clarity and spiritual guidance, are left with institutions more concerned with preserving the authority of the hierarchy than serving their spiritual hunger of their congregations.
In traditional systems as well, the same pattern is unfolding. Royal courts and cultural leadership structures sometimes elevate individuals based on allegiance to relationships or authority’s personal approval rather than on competence that enhances community-oriented leadership. But the hard truth remains that where cultural custodianship becomes captive to sycophancy, it is normally the trust of the community that is always challenged.
But what is more worrying is that the deeper danger of loyalty-driven patronage lies in its subtlety. It rarely announces itself as incompetence. It dresses itself in the language of trust, unity, and ideological purity. It argues that shared values matter more than technocratic skill. It warns that outsiders or critics cannot be trusted. Over time, however, the institutional cost becomes clear: mediocrity entrenches itself. Innovation slows. Impunity occupies the centre space. And corruption finds fertile soil.
The fact is that a competent official would normally ask difficult questions. Competence would demand evidence, data, and reasoned debate. Blind loyalty would, on the other hand, demand affirmation from the boss. Competence strengthens institutions because it ties authority to performance. Patronage weakens them because it ties authority to proximity. In mature democracies, checks and balances are designed to mitigate this risk. Independent civil services, professional bureaucracies, and merit-based recruitment systems serve as buffers against excesses in political favouritism. But even these safeguards appear to be eroding as leaders systematically undermine them by attacking career officials, politicizing oversight bodies, or bypassing established procedures in favour of handpicked allies.
In less consolidated democracies or authoritarian systems, the problem can be more acute. Where institutions are fragile, the leader’s personal network becomes the foundation of the state. Contracts go to cronies. Regulatory agencies become partisan weapons. Courts lose their independence. The press is interminably harassed by state officials. Civil servants learn that advancement depends less on competence and more on political alignment. Over time, talented professionals exit public service or migrate, creating brain drain conditions that further weakens governance. The economic implications are profound. Investors seek predictability, transparency, and rule-based governance. When regulatory decisions hinge on personal loyalty rather than law, uncertainty fills the minds of prospective investors. Corruption increases transaction costs. Public funds are diverted from development projects to patronage networks. Infrastructure deteriorates. Social services weaken. The masses, the very citizens that public office is meant to serve, are forced to bear the brunt.
There is also the moral dimension. When young citizens observe that advancement depends on whom you know rather than what you know, their cynicism grows. Meritocracy becomes a myth, not a contemporary reality. Hard work loses its incentive. The social contract frays. In societies already grappling with economic and social inequality, this perception can fuel resentment and unrest because effective leadership does not only require loyalty. It also requires courage, the courage to hear uncomfortable truths. A wise leader surrounds himself or herself with individuals who bring expertise to the table and are willing to challenge assumptions. This does not weaken authority: it strengthens it. It prevents costly mistakes and fosters resilient decision-making that predicates on authoritative data.
The global nature of this trend suggests that deeper structural pressures are manifesting. Polarization has intensified in many democracies. Social media are amplifying outrage and rewarding ideological purity. Political competition has become more zero-sum, encouraging leaders to consolidate power and marginalize rivals. In such an environment, loyalty feels safer than competence. But the truth remains that safety for leaders is not synonymous with safety for nations. That a leader feels safe does not mean that the country is safe. And that is the real dilemma many nations are silently facing.
Reversing this trend would require deliberate action. First is that merit-based recruitment systems must be protected and strengthened. Civil service examinations, transparent hiring processes, and independent oversight bodies should never be bureaucratic luxuries. They are democratic necessities. Second is that legislatures and courts must assert their roles in scrutinizing appointments and holding executives accountable. Third is that civil society and the media must continue to expose instances where patronage undermines public interest. Education also plays a role. Citizens must value competence. They must demand it. Voting decisions should reflect not only party allegiance but also assessments of administrative ability. In societies where identity politics dominate, this is challenging. But still, sustainable development depends on it.
Religious and traditional institutions must also introspect. Spiritual and cultural leadership carries immense influence. Where appointments within these spheres prioritize loyalty over community interest and integrity, the damage can be generational. Faith communities and cultural custodians must cultivate systems that reward learning, ethical conduct, and service to community rather than unalloyed loyalty to a figurehead. Of course, none of this implies that loyalty has no place in public life. Loyalty to constitutional principles, loyalty to the rule of law, loyalty to the public interest are all indispensable. But these forms of loyalty differ fundamentally from personal or partisan loyalty. They anchor authority in shared values rather than individual whims and caprices.
The stakes are high. Climate change, technological disruption, public health crises, migration pressures, and economic volatility demand highly competent governance. The margin for error must shrink. Complex challenges that require technical knowledge, strategic foresight, and administrative skill must be handled by experts and not the party faithful. A loyalty-first approach in such a context is not simply inefficient: it is reckless. Ultimately, public office must be a sacred trust in a democracy. It belongs to the people. It must serve the people. When leaders fill offices primarily with loyalists, they convert public institutions into private networks. They do governance by patronage, which is more autocratic than democratic. They risk turning states into echo chambers where applause drowns out accountability.
This developing trend is not good at-all. And this is not a partisan statement. It is a civic warning. Whether in Washington, London, Budapest, Pyongyang, Abuja, or elsewhere, the principle remains constant: competence matters in issues of patronage. Institutions matter. The public interest matters. Loyalty that undermines these foundations is not virtue, it is vulnerability. Unfortunately, if this trajectory continues unchecked, the cost will not be borne by leaders alone. It will be borne by ordinary citizens as well, by the worker seeking stable employment, the patient seeking reliable healthcare, the student seeking quality education, the entrepreneur seeking fair regulation, and the community seeking security and justice.
The way out of this dilemma is neither cynicism nor despair. It is insistence, an insistence that those entrusted with public power be chosen primarily for their ability to perform, to think independently, and to serve the broader society faithfully. Loyalty to individuals must give way to loyalty to institutions. Patronage that is based on relationship must give way to patronage that is based on competence and merit.
Only then can public offices reclaim their true purpose: working for the masses rather than for the narrow interests of their paymasters.
Chief Asinugo, PhD., M.A., KSC, is a highly respected commentator on national and international affairs.
