nepotism
11 Sep 2008
Labor Cronyism Is Strangling Australia
Powerful people putting their friends and family into top positions isn't just unfair, it damages the whole country. And the ALP have done it so much that we just accept it
I recently visited my old country, Argentina. It wasn't a pretty picture.Not for the first time, the country is run by a presidential couple — this time it's the Kirchners. At least in the 1950s Juan Peron stopped short of letting his wife, Eva Duarte (Evita), occupy a formal position in government. But when he died 20 years later he left his Vice-President, and third wife, Isabel Martínez de Perón in charge of the country. She was manifestly unqualified to hold any public office, let alone the presidency.
Last year, President Kirchner made his wife the frontrunner in that year's presidential elections. Against a divided opposition Cristina Kirchner easily won the presidency. Her Government now stumbles from one crisis to the next.
Many Australians will say, rather despairingly: "Oh, well, that's Latin American politics for you..." But is it really just them?
What I found on my return to Australia a few months ago was not that different. The party in power at every level of government — the Australian Labor Party — is hardly a paragon of institutional propriety. I read about the "power couple" involved in an unsavoury scandal at a provincial night club. One is a minister in the country's largest state. His wife (surely a coincidence) is a federal Member of Parliament and part of the ruling government.
Now I read that a former state minister in NSW, praised some time ago for giving up her post to look after her young son, recently returned to cabinet as the Deputy Premier. It must have been hard making sure the boy spent enough time with a parent, since her husband is also a minister - in the federal cabinet.
Then there is a gentleman who was appointed as a director general of one of the largest State Government departments. He is married — again a coincidence — to a federal cabinet minister. Not even his rather colourful record was an obstacle to his appointment.
There are more coincidences. There is another state minister who is married to the sister of a federal minister. The brother of that federal minister heads one of the most powerful unions in Australia.
I could mention a few other coincidences, and then also wonder aloud whether many former union officers or party staffers really possess the best qualifications to hold the positions they occupy in Parliament or hold executive power. However, there is no need to do that. We all know.
Nepotism — let's call a spade a spade — is rampant in the Australian Labor Party. Nobody could accuse Labor of running a meritocracy. It is becoming more open and shameless. Worse still, it has become acceptable. There is hardly any criticism anywhere in the media any more. Don't they think twice before appointing the spouse of a minister as a candidate in an election? Or when they parachute an unknown but trusted staffer of some apparatchik into a safe seat?
This is not just a matter for the ALP. As the party in power at almost every level in our country, their nepotistic selection practices are affecting directly how Australia is actually governed. Nepotism stops advancement and frustrates achievement. Nepotism affects people who, in most cases, won't even know that have been directly affected. The spouse, girlfriend, or mate who occupies a position in power they could not have on merit victimises another individual who is properly qualified.
There is an established rule, unwritten but often written too, in our best professional firms and across the corporate sector that the employment of relatives and mates of the principals and directors is not allowed. This is done to ensure that candidates are hired on merit so that only the best people occupy positions of responsibility. When that sacred rule is contravened, organisations suffer as a whole. Second-rate people end up in charge and good people leave after realising that their credentials and achievements will not lead to advancement.
The old rule of "it is who you know, not what you know" has wrecked not only many companies and institutions, but also many countries. We need to face the fact that Australia is running a serious risk of falling into that very trap since the party in power at almost every level conducts itself as a private club run by mates for the benefit of the mates' mates and their relatives. It is not just bad practice; it is a corrupt practice and it is eroding our institutions.
The lamentable and shocking spectacle recently put on by the NSW Labor Party when it chose a new premier was the kind of disgrace I haven't seen since I left Latin America two decades ago. A new head of government has been appointed who is virtually unknown to anybody. His track record as a politician is alarmingly short and undistinguished and his accomplishments in the private sector are simply non-existent. His own website did not list a single one. His chances of being considered for, let alone holding, any equivalent senior executive position in the private sector on the basis of his current qualifications and experience are nil.
Yet this individual was selected unanimously by the ALP caucus as the most qualified individual to run Australia's most populous state.
The question to be asked is this: of all the people in NSW, was this individual the best-qualified person to take on this enormous responsibility? The objective answer is No. So, how did he get there? The conclusion has to be: because the process is so wrong that it produces mistakes of this size. The responsibility lies at the feet of a system which must be revamped in its entirety.
But will it? Don't hold your breath. There is not a single voice being heard from anyone in power who dare say so or is prepared to do anything about it. Are you listening Prime Minister?
The point is that our best and brightest minds do not have a hope of being considered for any political office on merit. They are shut out of the process. Unless you are a relative, mate or partner of a political apparatchik, or you become an apparatchik yourself and wait for your turn by aligning yourself with a particular faction within the party your chances of joining the political debate as a participant is virtually nil — celebrities excepted.
Within our Westminster-style system, the talent that makes it into parliaments is the talent you'll end up having to work with — you can't go appointing good people to cabinet just because they're the most talented in the country, as you can under a presidential system. So while a presidential style of government may be arguably even more prone to cronyism, it at least offers an enlightened leader a way out when all his or her options would otherwise be mere party drones. This serves to highlight the crucial importance in our system of getting the best people into parliament in the first place, which we're simply not doing.
One must accept that in any society or organisation, a dose of cronyism will always exist. But we run into serious danger when we accept it, when cronyism becomes the norm, and people of ordinary ability effectively end up running Australia.
I wish the whole system could change, so that the process is opened up on both sides of the political divide to our best people in much the same way private sector appointments are made, openly and transparently. Because if we continue in this way, I may well end up feeling that, after leaving Latin America so many years ago, I have travelled a long way only to have arrived at the same place.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
If we wanted the best-qualified people to hold positions of power, we wouldn’t be a democracy in the first place.
Go on, name names. At least their staff will get a google alert, it may even get the article read by someone who can do something. It wont be long before they change the National Anthem to the banjo theme from Deliverence. This much inbreeding is not good for the country.
Great article, Ezequiel. Really enjoyed it.
One thing, though: part of the reason so many Labor pollies are mates, married and so on could be because a lot of Labor politicians have been in the Party since their teens or early twenties. These people tend to spend a LOT of time together and, yes, marry each other.
That’s not to say that nepotism isn’t a problem for the ALP, but it’s a little more complex than simply promoting husbands, wives, brother-in-laws and so on.
good point enirahccas. i think the problem is not so much nepotism (although this certainly exists, especially with jobs in the public service) it’s more what happens AFTER these people are in positions of power.
Governments do all they can to avoid conflict of interest (ie not giving spouses similar portfolios etc) but it’s hard to believe when two married MPs sit down to dinner in the evening that work DOESN’T come up - and that when decisions are to be made that affect their spouse, that they DON’T take into account its impact on their spouse and family. I just don’t think it’s possible to stamp out conflict of interest altogether when you have that kind of a scenario
Ezequiel, you should not assume that all of these links are instances of nepotism. As enirahccas sweetly points out, many of them have made successful careers on their own talent, and are associated with one another because of long affiliation in a hothouse atmosphere. That’s not to say there aren’t problems, of course, but you present these links as self-evident cases of promotion due to connection, and it is not a sufficient proof.
"There is an established rule, unwritten but often written too, in our best professional firms and across the corporate sector that the employment of relatives and mates of the principals and directors is not allowed. "
Get real Ezequiel.
The private sector are the nepotism experts. They wrote the book on jobs for family members too stupid to get work elsewhere. James Packer and Lachlin Murdoch ring a bell?
How about some balance next article?
Enough’s Enough
Points well made Ezequiel. The Australian Federal Police force is another good example where nepotism stops advancement and frustrates achievement. Are there family ties at its most senior level?
Isn’t this simply a reflection of our new position as an established rather than frontier society?
It seems to me that the maintenance of power and the tendency for that power to gravitate to fewer individuals is a hallmark of the later periods of many civilisations.
The United States has long ago succumbed to this trend, most notably with the Kennedy, Bush and Clinton clans.
Criticism of this tendency is complicated by the fact that these people still may have considerable merit, having observed and lived politics their whole life.
The best answer to this problem is revolution. After a significant change of power it would take at least three generations to return to todays state of affairs.
This problem with the Labor Party is not limited to NSW. The right wing now has a stranglehold on the Victorian branch and ordinary rank and file members are irrelevant. The administration and governance of the party are so inbred - both biologically and socially - that after being a member for nearly forty years I can no longer bring myself to vote for them.
Hi Doctor,
Check out ‘patron-client systems’ and ‘neo-patrimonialism’ on Google: there is a mass of material about precisely what you suggest, the tendency for power to gravitate to fewer individuals and their cronies.
This is a very common process among Indigenous proganisations, it must be said, in fact, I’m trying to think of one where it doesn’t occur, where there is a disproportion of members of particular families in an organisation, and where the big man of the family seems to have control over the organisation (and its budget, the appointment to positions, the acces to vehicles, etc.) year after year. Nope, can’t. But I’m sure it exists, somewhere, amongst the five thousand Indigenous organisations :)
Come to think of it, my wife Maria ran a very hard-working, very dedicated unit at the Uni of SA in Indigenous student support, and although the bastards there pushed her out for not confining Indigenous students to Indigenous courses, her former staff members still tell me what a terrific boss she was, very straight, very hard on them, very easy on the students. So she was able to oversee the graduation of a thousand Indigenous people in a multitude of courses before the university got ‘radical’ and, in my view, racist (well, more racist) and started to play politics with Indigenous education - in fact, come to think of it, Labor Party politics, appointing their little golden-haired boys. Slimy bastards, both Black and White. Universities are actually another good example of exactly what you write about, Doctor, with vice-chancellors - probably the most superfluous excrescences that God or man ever devised - at the head of very elaborate neo-patrimonial systems. That should be worth a few law suits: but I think I would willingly do time for those bastards if I could bring them down in any way.
Cheers,
Joe
Asti
Catching up on the intray, I couldn’t resist reading this article. I don’t think it’s that people aren’t aware of what is happening, or don’t resent it. Rather I think that people in NSW have entered that sullen stage that Australia had in the last year of the Howard government - we will wait until the next election, then OUT they go. Nothing we can do until then, nothing they do will change how we feel now - we have had a gut full of the nepotism, the corruption, the looking after factional allies, the arrogance…
And on your comment "Then there is a gentleman who was appointed as a director general of one of the largest State Government departments. He is married — again a coincidence — to a federal cabinet minister. Not even his rather colourful record was an obstacle to his appointment" - it’s even worse than that. I’ve heard through reliable sources that the new Minister of this very large State Government Department is very good family friends with the DG and his Federal cabinet minister wife. To the extent that they go on holidays together.
So how fearlessly frank and independent is his advice to his Minister going to be, and more importantly, how independently will she evaluate any information, lobbying, etc, that she receives from sources other that her Director General friend?