Infestation of national recruitment policies

Loopholes in national recruitment policies that entrench more division among common peoples

Infestation of national recruitment policies

With Opoka Christopher Arop

I have always wondered how senior government officials are somehow able to beat the system in the unexpected way and use the same system the right way when it came to specific situations. I have noticed over time, just how many senior government officials tend to bring along with them an office manager/office assistant who is always exactly one of their own, and our system has allowed this not to mean tribalism or whatever vice the Anti-corruption people will make of it.

It is argued, rightly or not, that since this position is not reserved for a political appointment and is therefore not subject to labor rules and regulations, and also can be overruled when it came to scrutiny by the tribalism clause lens, most ‘Office Managers’ have turned to be direct relations of ministers, deputy ministers, Director Generals, chairpersons of Commissions, Chairpersons of Committees in the national assemblies and what other positions that will permit such migration of kinsfolk into the management of national offices for political appointees.

Is this system a double standard in itself? The answer surely has to be a resounding yes! Perhaps not too fast! Our systems of employment and recruitment have all perpetuated and legitimized tribalism and corruption. We tend to say with a two edged interpretation of our labor regulations and policies that, you can condemn corruption with one and fight it with the other. This cannot work.

It is my opinion that our first failure in fighting tribalism has been at the national front. The Office of the President and offices of all national ministers and the mediocrity of the unprincipled national legislators that have shamed this country has been allowed to continue unabated for years on end. Visit the office of the President and you will surely feel to have relocated to Warrap. When Wani Iga was appointed as VP, all Nuer were ‘caste-aways’ and in came our Bari boys, and some few Dinka chaps retained. We all know why?

In other countries’ with the exception of some few, the ideal is to put in a system of recruitment that is blind to tribal and military-political-economic affiliations of human resource, but rather insist on the productivity of those recruited, and how they blend with the long term interests of the person elected or appointed to lead the institution into the realm of ‘service delivery’ to the electorate. For example, if as an individual, Opoka is opposed to the policies of politician X as regards to abortion and homosexuality [pro or against], he may simply have to either apply or not to apply for a job in an institution to be run by politician X. It should be that easy. Of course, like all human beings Opoka may apply with the hope of changing the mindset of politician X in the course of his employment, if it is a long term one, keeping in mind the opinion of those who would oppose the position of the politician and oppose Opoka in the process, should they discover that Opoka and politician X have conflicting opinions regarding the same contentious issues. But this dilemma is reminisce of politics Africa is yet to see!

So as a politician, I am permitted to bring just about anybody of my choice to be my Office Manager. This person would have my total confidence. This person would have full access to my appointments, beyond my security detail. This person would be responsible for whom I met, when, where I ate and with whom, records of what I have discussed and their summary thereof. This person would have a crucial role in my success at performing my job as say minister, Director General or even President. With all this in mind, our leaders seem to defy logic and go for a relative as an Office Manager and the system [former Labor minister Awut Deng and others] and drowsy legislators seem to have blindly blessed this buffoonery.

I have always also wondered, how the same system was inversely applied to the tea girls, boys, fat and skinny women who mused all day with jokes of their own class and in the process enjoyed more tea than their superiors, and worked less hours to add to injury. They made gossip get a new face and often worked more years in the same ministry than those competent staffs that were soon fired for misplaced loyalties upon being rated incompetent. Unclassified staff as they have been coined; tended to be a ploy at appeasing the ‘lowest of the low’ among the kinsfolk of the head of an institution or any similarly powerful post-holder. Rife argument is that most of these people are underprivileged and must therefore ‘waste away’ national resources! How economic of our system!

Here comes the juiciest frog of them all. A close friend has accused Equatorians of dominating all employments within the United Nations systems, especially specific tribes from Equatoria, whom he/she feels have infiltrated the recruitment spheres to the extent that even “unqualified” persons from these tribes get employed at the expense of the “more qualified” from regions other than “Greater Equatoria”.

This led me to explore some United Nations agencies: UNDP, WFP, UNICEF and FAO for starters, and I discovered that in deed there are many Equatorians in these international organizations. Whether they are there on merit or other formula altogether, I haven’t had the means nor the time to discuss and research further. But as to the question that United Nations agencies can deliberately employ persons from a specific region defeats reason. However, as to the defeating logic of people’s perceptions with relation to employment trends, I find this preclusion the more sensitive and needing redress. United Nations agencies that find themselves culprits, rightly or otherwise must explain themselves. Even if their explanations may only reflect a clean employment process; they must do so and make other people in this country understand that all staffs are employed on merit and not on other basis.

I had the pleasure of discussing with one State minister about a proposal to have a certain percentage of employments [government and NGO] allocated to nationals from other States. For example, 40% of all employments in State government and NGOs would be reserved for persons from all States across South Sudan to compete for.

But fingers will soon point toward the Greater Equatorians taking all positions in the country, because [they ran to Uganda earlier than the rest and got opportunities to study, or because most South Sudanese from other regions other than Equatoria had to endure service in the liberation struggle or were trapped in IDP camps without opportunities to study]. These kinds of counter arguments are what keep us lagging behind.

I stand to be corrected in thinking there are very many able, willing and qualified non-Equatorians who have not been made good offers to return home, and this is why as per the above counter-argument, Equatorians would likely take up most positions in other regions and other regions fail to meet employment requirements in Equatoria. The simplistic explanation is that not as many Equatorians went abroad and gained citizenship [because even those that claimed horrendous recollections of torture and abuse failed to attain citizenship, many others failed the IOM interviews and most didn’t have the opportunity to fill out the forms and migrate.] Most Equatorians settled in refugee camps, cultivated, took their children to school, with some few lucky ones obtaining scholarships and completing their studies. Some lucky Equatorians survived by doing business, others pretended to be Ugandans and obtained citizenship in an attempt to get employments and survive. And so it is only practical that many Equatorians returned with better academic papers and experience.

The bottom-line is that there has been a deliberate attempt at appeasing all by making tribalism within the recruitment circles an implicit and acceptable norm. This must stop. However, unfounded perceptions must also be guarded against being implicitly acceptable norms.