Progress is measured not only by the infrastructure a nation builds or the GDP it achieves, but also by the effectiveness, fairness, and sustainability of its institutions.

It is reflected in the competence of its leaders, the integrity of its systems, and the trust of its citizens in government.

Yet across much of Africa, including Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, a pervasive pattern of ethnic favoritism — where appointments, promotions, and contracts are awarded based on tribal affiliation rather than skill — undermines these markers of progress.

When ethnicity replaces merit as the guiding principle for governance and economic opportunity, the very foundations of development are compromised.

At first glance, a nation may appear to make progress. Roads may be built, schools may open, and budgets may grow.

But if the individuals overseeing projects lack competence, and if contracts are awarded to friends, relatives, or co-ethnics rather than qualified firms, progress becomes superficial, fragile, and unsustainable.

True development requires that skill, capacity, and accountability drive decision-making — otherwise, a country merely moves in form, not in substance.

1. The Prevalence of Ethnic Bias in Appointments and Contracts

In multi-ethnic societies, political leaders often distribute opportunities along ethnic lines to secure loyalty and consolidate power. This manifests in several ways:

a. Government Appointments
Cabinet positions, civil service roles, and security leadership are often distributed according to ethnicity or regional identity. Meritocracy takes a backseat. Qualified candidates are overlooked because they belong to “the wrong tribe,” while less competent individuals are elevated because they share an ethnic connection with the ruling elite.

b. Public Contracts
State resources are frequently channeled toward businesses with political or tribal ties. Procurement processes are manipulated to favor firms from the leader’s community. In Nigeria, allegations of ethnic favoritism in awarding infrastructure contracts and government tenders have persisted for decades, fueling inequality and stagnation in marginalized regions.

c. Political Patronage Networks
Appointing and awarding contracts along ethnic lines creates an informal patronage system. Citizens and companies align themselves not with competence or performance but with ethnic networks, perpetuating a cycle of favoritism and reinforcing the perception that advancement is determined by identity rather than capability.

2. The Erosion of Competence and Institutional Capacity

When ethnicity becomes the dominant criterion for appointments, institutions suffer a systemic weakening:

a. Inefficiency and Poor Performance
Positions filled by unqualified individuals inevitably produce substandard results. Ministries fail to implement policy effectively, regulatory agencies are unable to enforce rules, and public services deteriorate. For instance, infrastructure projects overseen by inexperienced managers often face delays, cost overruns, and subpar quality.

b. Stifling of Talent
Competent professionals are discouraged from entering public service or pursuing opportunities in industries dominated by ethnic favoritism. A skilled engineer, lawyer, or administrator may see little chance of promotion or fair treatment, prompting them to leave the public sector or even the country. The resulting brain drain depletes the nation’s human capital and slows development.

c. Institutionalized Corruption
Ethnic favoritism fosters an environment where accountability is selective. Officials protect co-ethnics from scrutiny while punishing others, creating a double standard. Over time, this institutionalizes corruption and erodes norms of professional ethics.

3. Economic Implications of Ethnic-Based Decisions

Assigning contracts and appointments based on ethnicity distorts the economic landscape in several ways:

a. Resource Misallocation
Government funds are diverted to firms or regions favored by ethnicity rather than merit. Vital sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure may receive inadequate investment, while politically connected businesses profit. This reduces efficiency, increases costs, and limits national development.

b. Unequal Opportunity
Marginalized ethnic groups face systemic exclusion from opportunities. This not only perpetuates poverty but also fuels resentment and social tension, creating an environment where economic progress is uneven and unsustainable.

c. Suppression of Innovation
When contracts are awarded based on connections, not capability, there is little incentive for innovation. Firms that might propose cost-effective or technologically advanced solutions are ignored in favor of compliant, well-connected contractors. Over time, the nation falls behind global standards in competitiveness.

4. The Impact on Governance and Policy Implementation

Governments cannot function effectively when appointments reflect ethnicity rather than skill. Policy implementation suffers, accountability erodes, and governance becomes reactive rather than proactive:

a. Policy Distortion
Officials who owe their positions to ethnic loyalty may prioritize the interests of their tribe over national goals. Development programs intended to benefit all citizens are manipulated to favor certain groups, undermining equality and fairness.

b. Weak Oversight and Enforcement
Regulatory agencies staffed with unqualified personnel struggle to enforce laws, monitor projects, or ensure compliance. This allows malpractice and corruption to flourish unchecked, further weakening the rule of law.

c. Reduced Credibility of Institutions
Citizens perceive the government as serving narrow ethnic interests rather than the common good. Trust in institutions declines, social cohesion deteriorates, and citizen engagement diminishes, making governance less effective.

5. Social and Political Consequences

Ethnic favoritism in appointments and contracts is not merely a technical problem — it has profound social and political repercussions:

a. Heightened Ethnic Tensions
When one ethnic group dominates public resources, others perceive marginalization. In Nigeria, such perceptions have fueled political agitation, separatist movements, and even violent clashes. Favoritism undermines national unity, creating a fragmented society in which collective progress is difficult to achieve.

b. Disillusionment with Democracy
Citizens lose faith in democratic processes when they see that elections and appointments favor certain groups. Voter apathy rises, and talented individuals disengage from public life, reducing civic participation and weakening democratic culture.

c. Entrenchment of Elite Power
Ethnic favoritism consolidates power in the hands of elites, making social mobility nearly impossible for outsiders. This reinforces inequality and creates a society in which progress is reserved for a privileged few.

6. Case Examples

Several African countries illustrate the consequences of ethnic favoritism:

• Nigeria: Federal appointments and public contracts are often perceived to favor the dominant ethnic groups in power, contributing to underdevelopment in marginalized regions and fueling insurgencies in the North and separatist agitation in the South-East.

• Kenya: Historical patterns of ethnic favoritism in land allocation and civil service appointments have exacerbated tensions between Kikuyu, Luo, and other groups, leading to cycles of electoral violence.

• South Africa: Post-apartheid political appointments have sometimes favored certain ethnic constituencies within the ruling party, leading to perceptions of exclusion and uneven service delivery.

In each case, economic growth and policy reform are hindered, showing that superficial progress cannot compensate for deep systemic inequities.

7. Moving Toward Genuine Progress

For a nation to claim true progress, it must prioritize competence, merit, and accountability over ethnicity. Steps include:

• Merit-Based Recruitment: Public service and contracts should be awarded transparently, based on qualifications and performance.

• Independent Oversight: Regulatory bodies should monitor procurement and appointments to prevent favoritism.

• Inclusive Development: Policies should ensure equitable resource allocation across regions and ethnic groups.

• Civic Education: Citizens must be encouraged to value competence and integrity over tribal loyalty.

• Accountability Mechanisms: Officials who engage in favoritism should face consequences, reinforcing a culture of fairness.

           +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Progress cannot be claimed in a nation where skill and competence are sidelined in favor of ethnicity. While roads, schools, and budgets may exist on paper, the quality, efficiency, and sustainability of development suffer. Institutions that should serve the entire population instead become instruments of narrow tribal interest, eroding trust, fueling inequality, and stifling talent.

True progress requires a culture of meritocracy, accountability, and inclusivity. A nation may have physical infrastructure and economic growth, but without competent governance, equitable opportunities, and trust in institutions, such progress is fragile and unsustainable. Until appointments and contracts reflect ability rather than ethnicity, claims of national advancement remain hollow — a façade masking deeper structural weaknesses that threaten both development and unity.

A nation can only call itself progressive when its institutions, policies, and opportunities serve all citizens fairly, regardless of tribal affiliation, and when merit, integrity, and vision are the currency of leadership and success.