Managing political patronage: A balancing act

By Kenrick Quashie

Every change of government presents an uncomfortable but unavoidable task of managing political patronage. It is an act that must be approached with maturity, restraint, and principle, especially after such a decisive electoral mandate.  

One thing must be said clearly from the outset: the excesses and blatant abuse of the ousted ULP administration must not become the justification for the present.

“They did it to us, so we can do it too” cannot be the governing philosophy of this new administration. That mindset lowers standards, fosters division, and simply ensures that abuse changes hands rather than ends.

It is, therefore, refreshing to see the high calibre, independence and professionalism of the new commissioners of the Public Service and Police Commission. I have every confidence that they will bring balance and restore the public sector to some semblance of independence and fairness that it ought to embody.

At the same time, pretending that politics does not exist or that appointments to certain posts are ever entirely neutral is equally dishonest. In every democracy, elected governments are entitled to shape the senior leadership of the state to reflect their mandate, priorities, and philosophy.

The challenge, therefore, is not whether political patronage exists, but how it is managed. The mistake many make is to treat political patronage as either inherently evil or automatically justified. It is neither. Political patronage becomes destructive when it is used to punish, exclude, or reward loyalty regardless of competence. However, it becomes acceptable and indeed necessary when it is used to ensure alignment, accountability, and effective implementation of policy.  

What must be rejected outright is the idea that anyone should be removed simply because they were appointed by the previous government. That would be crude victimisation. But it is equally flawed to argue that someone should remain indefinitely simply because they appear to be “doing a good job”. Governance is not only about technical performance. It is also about trust, alignment, and legitimacy. A senior official may, therefore, be competent, experienced, and diligent and still be the wrong fit for a new administration tasked with executing a different vision. In such cases, it does not make removal punitive but rather strategic. 

Likewise, it is a fallacy to assume that a supporter of the opposing party is inherently less capable. Political affiliation does not negate competence. Still, understanding the government’s goals and helping to expedite them effectively and efficiently is critical to shaping new leadership. 

In fact, someone who believes in the government’s philosophy may be able to perform as well or even better than current senior leadership, precisely because they understand and support the mandate given by the people.  The true standard, therefore, cannot be loyalty alone, nor continuity alone. The standard must be competence plus alignment, exercised within a framework of fairness and respect for due process.

The challenge we face in SVG is that too many senior government officials have compromised their professional responsibility and position that is quite difficult for the new administration to accept that they have the wherewithal to align with the new mandate and to execute the tasks associated with the new mandate fairly and professionally.

What must also be avoided is the false moral high ground of inaction. Leaving politically appointed individuals in place out of fear of criticism can paralyse reform and frustrate the electorate’s expectations. Elections are not just about changing faces at the ballot box. They are about enabling a government to govern. That inevitably requires some changes in leadership at the top. 

All the same, there are lines that must never be crossed. Ordinary workers such as clerks, janitors, watchmen, drivers, junior officers and so on must never be caught in political crossfire. Their livelihoods should not rise or fall based on electoral outcomes. Accountability must be targeted, not indiscriminate. Managing political patronage, then, is a balancing act between justice and pragmatism, renewal and stability, and political reality with democratic responsibility. 

It is unrealistic to think that political patronage can be avoided altogether.  The true measure of a responsible and mature government, though is whether it handles it with restraint, transparency, and purpose. Political patronage should serve governance, not undermine it. It should enable reform, not inculcate fear. If this new administration governs by higher standards than the then ULP administration, it will send a powerful signal that change was not merely promised, but practised.

The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].