Spoils System vs Merit System

Context:

• U.S. President Joe Biden faces a new challenge as the demand for not appointing donor ambassadors gains momentum.

Relevance:
Mains: GS II-

• Comparison of the Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries
• Structure, organization & functioning of the Executive & the Judiciary
• Ministries and Departments of the Government

• Spoils system, also called patronage system is a practice in which the political party winning an election rewards its campaign workers and other active supporters by appointment to government posts and with other favours.
• The merit system is a system by which appointments and promotions in the civil service are based on competence rather than political favouritism.

 Arguments in favour of the spoils system:

• It is a means of maintaining an active party organization by offering loyal workers occupational rewards.
• It also guarantees the ruling party loyal and cooperative employees.
• It results in a more effective government because the appointed officeholders have a stake in helping the elected official to carry out his policies and fulfill his campaign promises.

Arguments against the spoils system:

• It results in appointments that were based strictly on the needs of the party, without regard for the appointee’s qualifications or ability to do the job.
• Frequent replacement of the employees results in instability and inefficiency
• It is a form of soft corruption

Arguments in favour of the merit system:

• Protection against arbitrary action, personal favouritism, and political coercion.
• The guarantee of a job classification and salary structure based on sound professional standards, prevailing community practices, legal requirements, and equity.
• Merit is both a reward and incentive for excellence
• An honest, effective, and productive workplace is created.
• Employees build organizations and the service they provide to customers allows the organization to be successful. 

Arguments against merit system:

• Merit evaluators are too subjective, and fair merit systems are difficult to develop
• The merit system might lead to uncooperative behaviours among employees, creating conflict that can negatively affect productivity.
• Personal goals become more important than team goals
• To get better postings it might lead to unhealthy competition

The American System:

• Article II of the US constitution provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors”.
• The President enjoys wide latitude in selecting a nominee and the Senate is comparably free to choose whether to advise and consent.
• The onus for the quality and integrity of the nominees rests on the President, but the Senate has the right to hold back confirmation of any nominee, including career diplomats.
• This often results in donors becoming ambassadors
• The United States is an outlier in assigning ambassadorships in this fashion.
• This practice is aberrational among advanced democracies and a source of recurrent controversy in the United States.
• It is a kind of American exceptionalism.

The Indian System:

• Ambassadors and High Commissioners – are selected in keeping with India’s priorities, the requirements in a particular Diplomatic Mission, and their overall suitability including experience, seniority, and regional and professional expertise.
• The President approves the appointments of Ambassadors/High Commissioners based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister and the appointment is also subject to the agreement of the receiving State.
• India has a more sophisticated system of appointing “political” ambassadors, not for donation to political parties, but as an avenue to recognize and reward talent.
• Till very recently, career diplomats could not aspire to ambassadorial posts in London, Washington, or Moscow as distinguished people from different walks of life were appointed to add weight to the positions.
• In the early years, Maharajas was appointed to several posts.
• And later, politicians were sent abroad when they had to be kept away from the country.
• The Government has the discretion of appointing political ambassadors in up to 30% of the posts.
• But now, the number of political ambassadors is small, if at all, and the senior posts are open to career diplomats.

• Not every ambassador needs to be a career Foreign Service official.
• There are political appointees chosen for reasons unrelated to campaign cash.
• The close ties that some political appointees have with the president can prove valuable, and even delicate diplomatic postings have been deftly handled by noncareer chiefs.
• Thus, while career Foreign Service members are preferred, circumstances will warrant appointments from time to time of qualified individuals who are not career members.
• But, it must be ensured that contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual.

• At this point in the USA, top donors have come to see themselves as entitled to such spoils.
• It is time to reset those expectations.
• Joe Biden was elected to restore honour and decency and competence to the White House and the government more broadly.
• Dismantling the donor-to-ambassador pipeline would be a quick step in that direction.