3. Introduction
3.2 African Culture and Nepotism
3.2.3 Contribution of the Extended Family System to Nepotism
92
Fukuyama makes this as a general statement, however appropriating it to our context here is not out of place because the extended family system is strongest in Africa. In Africa then what binds people to their family is stronger than what binds them to the government. To bring this issue home, consider a situation where a civil servant who understands that he has only few years to serve in the government before retirement, but will continue to be with his family for the remaining part of his life. Understandably, the general sentiment for this official would be that his public office is secondary such that his primary commitment is to the family. He will definitely reason that if he uses his office to the benefit of his family members, they will surely accept him even if his effort results in his losing his job. He has to help his people; otherwise it will seem as if he is disobeying the elders of the family who in Africa are always making demands on well to do members of their family.
The official will always choose to be obedient to the family rather than the government.
It is therefore the case that African extended family system is like a double edged sword in its relationship to the state. While its existence creates the spirit of brotherhood and harmonious existence in the state, it is also inimical to the development and growth of the state because of its inclination towards corruption.
According to since members of the extended family usually benefit from their relatives who may be involved in unethical practices in the public service, they may see nothing wrong with that (Ekeh, 1975: 105). On the contrary however this practice from such official affects the general public negatively and is therefore unethical and corrupt.
93
extended family by a civil servant are seen as unmerited favour and as nepotism in the modern period. Thus, according to Osei-Hwedie and Osei-Hwedie:
It is also argued that the influence of extended family and tribal or family loyalties and commitments, often lead to corruption. In African countries, there is the notion that people‟s identification and relationship with the state and its institution are much weaker than identification and relationship with the family. Thus, there is an expectation of reciprocity between the service provider and the receiver of the service. In this case, nepotism may derive from age-old customs,(Osei- Hwedie and Osei-Hwedie 2000: 46).
In simple terms, what Osei-Hwedie and Osei-Hwedie are saying is that the strong kingship bond between members in an extended family overrides the commitment such individuals have towards their states; and that this leads to nepotism. Hoff and Sen agree that “once a member of a kin group is in a managerial position, with power to recruit and promote other members of his group exert pressure on him for favours and can enter into side- contract through which transfers required under the kin system are fulfilled in kind” (Hoff and Sen, 2002: 4). Hence it is assumption to thinkthat it is the strong commitment of the extended family that encourages nepotism, probably not only in Africa but in other parts of the word. With regard to the Arab world, Abdalla Hayajenh, Ahmed Maghrabi and Taher Al-Dabbagh explain that:
The socio-cultural structure in the Arab world has its origin in tribal and kinship relations. These tribal and extended family ties constitute the basic institutions which shape the individual‟s social values, norms and behaviour. These values and norms encourage nepotism in Arab societies, encouraging individuals to fulfil their responsibilities towards their family. Tribal systems require strong commitment from individuals towards their tribes, which allow nepotism if it concerns relatives (Hayajenh, Maghrabi and Al-Dabbagh, (1994).
94
This observation confirms the existential fact that there is an existential link between the extended family system and nepotism. The confirmation is important because it shows that the practice is not just restricted to African society alone but obtains in every society with strong kinship bond. The fact that it is common or strongest in Africa goes a long way to show that kinship bond in African is extraordinarily strong in comparison to any other part of world.
Does this mean that traditional African society that promotes such practice is particularly immoral? This is what it looks like but to make such conclusion would amount to imposing modern system of moral evaluation on a society where there is no basis for such imposition. Traditional African society where the language of nepotism is alien would probably see nothing wrong in a civil servant helping his relatives, friends and in-laws when he is in a position to do so. The reason for this is clear: the peoples‟ culture require them to care for relatives in need and to be their brothers keepers. No traditional African would be ashamed to be caught helping a relative, a friend or an in-law. Should the person be asked why his preference for his relatives to others in matters of public employment; the simple reply would be:
it is our culture, is there anything wrong in giving job to my relatives or to my in- law.
It is exactly this traditional African interpretation of the extended family system that is imported whole sale into modern society without taken cognizance of the differences between both societies. Thus those who are involved in the crime of nepotism, their victim (which is the common good) and those who benefit from this crime, may apparently see nothing wrong with it or would try to down play its gravity because they think that it is a part and parcel of the society.
Consequently, instead of coming out to oppose nepotism that has actually brought the states in Africa on their knees, what most African do are to wait patiently for their turn; when their man would occupy the same position and favour them in the same proportion. There are numerous instances with which to illustrate this point.
Amundsen, for instances, uses the cases of many African presidents who tried to
95
secure their precarious power positions by nominating their family members to key political, economic and military/security positions in the state apparatus, (Amundsen, 2000:48). Hakeem Legge also reports that:
A former president of Liberia, William Tolbert Junior (1971-80) made his brother, Frank Tolbert, President of the senate (or upper house of the parliament), Stephen Tolbert, Minister of Finance and his sister Lucia Tolbert, Major of the City of Bentol (formerly known as Bensenville). He also appointed on of his sons as an Ambassador at Large or a roving Ambassador, his daughter, Wilhemina Tolbert, the President Physician and his nice, Tula Tolbert, the Presidential dietician and appointed his three nephews as Assistant Minister for Presidential Affairs (Legge, 2012: 1).
It is instructive to note that Legge (2012) gave other instance of many other relatives appointed by President Tolbert whowere not included in the quotation above. The point however, is that this is a clear case of where a civil servant holder was running his office as a family business. That himself and many of his countrymen did not see anything wrong with such appointments lend credence to what we are trying to clarify here; that the practice of extended family system in Africa encourages the corruption of nepotism.
Doug Jones believes however, that the interaction between nepotism and interpersonal relationship is not restricted to African alone. He sees it as a common human practice everywhere as people always tend to favour those they know above others. As he explains, “there is always the temptation for people everywhere to organize themselves in groups, with the aim of the group members preferring themselves to others who are not part of the group” (Jones, 2000:792). Jones continue to argue that this sort of grouping can actually lead to the practice of double standards of morality, which, encourages cooperation and altruism among
96
members of the same group against others who are not members of the group and even explain why ethnocentrism is still a major global issue. According to him:
One likely basis of ethnocentrism is the readiness of human beings to discriminate between in-grougs.
This in turn, shows that where nepotism is rampart, the issue of ethnocentrism is often the underlying factor (Jones, 2000: 793).
Jones is correct here. It is a common human experience that wherever people are divided into groups by virtue of their tribes, they are more often than not inclined to favour members of their group over non-members, when it comes to apportioning resources. We shall allow jones once again to recapture this point, not only do subjects show favouritism towards the in-group but they seem particularly concerned with relative group standing, trying to maximize the difference between in-group and out-group rewards rather than absolute rewards to the in-group. It is clear then that the recognition and discrimination between the in-groups and the out-group membership motivates nepotism.
Furthermore Jones attempt to clarify that the influence of interpersonal bond on nepotism is a human problem rather than an African problem has a particular implication for our study here. In the first place, it calls attention to the fact that the interpersonal relationship that motivates nepotism in contemporary African society is more complex than the kinship bond that was obtainable in traditional society.
Hence, in pre-colonial African society, tribal sentiments were mostly based on kinship or family and people were inclined to favour members of their family, but in this modern period as Jones insist that, “kinship is largely inconsequential outside the family” (Jones, 2000: 792). In order words, there are new ways that people carry out nepotism. The emphasis is not in favouring family members this time around (since there may not be family members working in the same place at the same time), but rather in favouring friends, associates and other social categories that have developed with modern socialization.
97
Nevertheless, we are particularly interested in nepotism that results from the pressure that the extended family exerts on civil servant. Our particular insistence on limiting our analysis to the extended family system is informed by our belief that no matter how modern an African society is today, the extended family still plays an indispensable role in forming and guiding behaviours.
Having made this point clear, let us turn our attention to some of the adverse effects on the society that could result from nepotism or from one‟s effort to favour his friends and relatives over and above others. Firstly, Dennis Laker and Mary Williams note that where nepotism is caused by the extended family system, it has some specific adverse effects associated with it. Some of these negative effects according to these scholars are “perception of favouritism, problem with discipline, potential fraud and breached confidentiality” (Laker and Williams, 2003: 191). For Egbue, the basic problem of nepotism is that it leads to hiring less qualified candidates for a job where more qualified candidates are available. Egbue argues that “personal relationships with friends and relatives also extend to providing them with jobs and contracts” (Egbue, 2006: 86). A civil servant of a high cadre that is in a position of employing people will give employment to his or her relatives, and then, will equally extend his favour to other friends who may be looking for jobs or contracts. Egbue also, opines that the practice of giving employment to less qualified candidates, where there are more qualified candidates for the same post not only encourages corruption but also causes inefficiency. One other problem that is likely to occur when selection is done, because of extended family, is that, most of those that are selected work as „hired labourers‟. Most often the code of conduct regarding the public sector officials is not followed as long as the god-father still remains active. In this way nepotism through the extended family system, will continue to effect the public service negatively, more especially in less developing societies (Egbue, 2006: 86).