Menu

SPOIL SYSTEM IN MODERN INDIA

Publications, Research paper
ABSTRACT

The research paper is about Spoil System and it is the misuse of power by a government of an authority by biasing the employment opportunity. This research paper discusses the main attributes of Spoil System in correspondence to the political situation prevailing in INDIA and cites the references to other such countries where similar practices were notably exposed. The Research paper enunciates the evolution of Civil services and the methods of recruitment for employees in the organizations. The research paper dowels deep into Malpractices in such process of recruitment at various levels of employment and the detrimental effects of such practices upon the society and common people and few suggestions based on the current situation to counteract against such mal practices.

KEYWORDS

Spoil System, Merit System, Process of appointment of postings,Evolution of Cicil Services, Cabinet Ministers, Civil Servents, Kitchen Cabinet, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Nepotism. 

INTRODUCTION

Country like India in a democratic system of government the process of government official selection is an essential one which based on meritocracy that is candidates selected shall be based on their qualifications and abilities rather than political connections or favouritism. This system aims to create a competent and impartial public service that can effectively deliver services to citizens. Spoil system is practiced.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research paper is secondary research which can be called as desk research that involves collection of data focused on a particular topic from various sources such as government organisation, website, newspaper articles, magazines etc

What is spoil system?

Spoil system is the practice in which being elected, political party show their gratitude to its active supporters and campaign workers by allocating them to government job postings along with other favours. Which is favoring its supporters beyond the common public. The spoils system involves political intervention of employment of public employees in favour of their party and removal of employees from office if their party did not win the election. Usually the employees are more like party members working in public offices. After an election if the Government is formed by a different party than the former, a reform of government officials happen, resulting in new officials being posted to high posts in the government which carries a high political responsibility and even the spoils system extends personnel turnover down to routine or subordinate governmental positions. The term was put to use in American politics as early as 1812, but it was made famous in a speech made in 1832 by Senator William Marcy of New York. He quoted, “To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.” While he was defending one of President Andrew Jackson’s appointments. The term spoils refer to the political appointments, such as ambassadorships or cabinet offices, controlled by an elected official. People do argue that offering occupational rewards to the loyal workers helps them to maintain the organization better. It also assures the ruling party cooperative and loyal employees. Supporters of the method to be very effective.

In the early days of United States of America, most of the presidents were practising something called the “spoils system.” Which means when the new presidents resume office, they replace the federal employees with loyalists from their own party in place of previous employees who were working under the previous administration.

Federal employees were fired if they didn’t demonstrate their loyalty to the ruling party by complying the favours of party bosses or contributing money as donations for campaigns. This was not an official U.S. policy, but over time, it became an unwritten political rule.

Calls for reformation of the spoils system considerably heaped up with the growth of the federal government after the Civil War. It then became a serious matter to be addressed after a disgruntled spoils system loyalist shot the President James A. Garfield for not employing him. The incident led to Garfield’s death after two months, and his successor, Chester A. Arthur was convinced enough that the civil service needs to be reformed and thus they begin dismantling the spoils system.

Merit System vs Spoil System
  • Process of Appointment: A rigorous selection process conducted by an independent authority makes the appointments to government posts under Merit System.
  • Historical Background: The Merit system in India was started by British in 1858. This was done by the introduction of ICS (Indian Civil Services) for the recruitment of the officers to be placed in the British India Administration.
  • Modern Application: Post Indian independence, the UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) was established for selecting officers for the Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Administrative Service (IAS), and other central services by means of unified exams.
  • Purpose: The purpose of the Merit system was to build career bureaucrats and they were supposed to discharge their duties irrelevant of the political biases and shall be capable of providing independent advice to the political executive wing.
The appointment of cabinet ministers and civil servants take place

In India, the Prime Minister is appointed by the President, and subsequently, the President appoints other ministers based on the advice of the Prime Minister; while civil servants, like IAS officers, are selected through a competitive exam conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), with the final appointment made by the President of India. 

Key points about the selection process:
  • Ministers:
  • Prime Minister: Appointed by the President, typically the leader of the party with a majority in the Lok Sabha. 
  • Other Ministers: The Prime Minister advices the President for appointment of other ministers to the cabinet. 
  • Portfolio Allocation: The Prime Minister decides which ministry each minister will head. 
  • Civil Servants:
  • Exam Conducting Body: The UPSC conducts the Civil Services Examination (CSE) to recruit officers for the All India Services like IAS, IPS, and IFS. 
  • Exam Stages: CSE consists of a preliminary exam, mains exam, and a personal interview. 
  • Appointment: The President of India appoints successful candidates to various civil service positions.
Selection is based on:
  • Merit-based selection:

The UPSC exam is designed to select candidates based on merit and competence. 

  • State Civil Services:

Apart from All India Services, each state also has its own civil service recruited through state-level exams conducted by the respective State Public Service Commissions. 

  • Political influence:

While the President technically appoints ministers, this is done based on the advice of the Prime Minister, allowing for political considerations in the selection process. 

Kitchen Cabinet

   The cabinet being the highest decision-making body in the formal sense in a government consists of a small body which shall include some 15 to 20 most important ministers lead by the Prime Minister of the Nation as its head. But in practical aspects even a smaller body termed as the ‘Inner Cabinet’ or ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ has become the real Power Centre. This informal body includes the Prime Minister and up to four influential colleagues whom the Prime Minister trusts and would be able to discuss any problems faced. They advise the prime minister on administrative issues, important political and help him in making sensible and crucial decisions. It is not necessary that only it shall be composed of cabinet ministers but also outsiders like friends, family members and professional executives.

Every prime minister in India has had his ‘Inner Cabinet’—a circle within a circle. During the era of Indira Gandhi, the ‘Inner Cabinet’ which came to be called the ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ was particularly powerful.

 Favouritism is good in the selection of the Kitchen Cabinet in India raises important considerations about governance and decision-making. Here are some key points to consider:

Pros of Favouritism in Kitchen Cabinet Selection
  1. Trust and Loyalty: Favouritism may lead to the selection of individuals with whom the Prime Minister has established trust and rapport. This can facilitate smoother communication and quicker decision-making, as these members are likely to share similar values and priorities.
  2. Efficient Decision-Making: A smaller, trusted group can make decisions more swiftly than a larger cabinet, which may enhance the government’s responsiveness to urgent issues.
  3. Confidentiality: The Kitchen Cabinet allows for discussions on sensitive matters without the need for public disclosure, which can be beneficial for national security and strategic planning.
Cons of Favouritism in Kitchen Cabinet Selection
  1. Lack of Diversity: Favouritism can lead to a lack of diversity in perspectives within the cabinet, as selections may Favor individuals from similar backgrounds or ideologies, potentially leading to groupthink.
  2. Undermining Meritocracy: Relying on favouritism can undermine merit-based selection processes, resulting in less qualified individuals being appointed to key positions, which can affect governance quality.
  3. Public Perception and Trust: Favouritism may erode public trust in government institutions if citizens perceive that appointments are based on personal connections rather than qualifications or performance.
  4. Potential for Corruption: Favouritism can create an environment conducive to corruption, where decisions are influenced by personal relationships rather than the public interest.

While favouritism in selecting members of the Kitchen Cabinet may offer some advantages in terms of efficiency and trust, it also poses significant risks related to governance quality, public perception, and accountability. A balanced approach that considers both personal trust and merit-based selection could lead to more effective governance while maintaining public confidence in governmental processes.

Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister

During Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister, her Kitchen Cabinet faced several criticisms. Here are the main points of criticism:

  1. Lack of Transparency: The decision-making process within the Kitchen Cabinet was often seen as opaque. Critics argued that important decisions were made by a small group of trusted advisors without adequate input from other ministers or party members, leading to a lack of broader representation.
  2. Concentration of Power: Indira Gandhi’s reliance on her Kitchen Cabinet resulted in a significant concentration of power. This centralization was criticized for undermining the collective responsibility that is typically expected in a parliamentary democracy, where decisions should involve broader consultation among elected representatives.
  3. Arrogance and Detachment: Members of the Kitchen Cabinet were often perceived as arrogant and detached from the realities faced by ordinary citizens. This perception was exacerbated during times of crisis, such as food shortages and economic difficulties, where the government seemed out of touch with public sentiment.
  4. Political Patronage: The composition of the Kitchen Cabinet sometimes reflected dynastic politics and favouritism, with appointments based more on loyalty to Indira Gandhi than on merit or experience. This raised concerns about the effectiveness and competence of those in key positions.
  5. Criticism from Within the Party: Indira Gandhi faced opposition not only from external critics but also from within her party. Factions within the Congress Party expressed dissatisfaction with her leadership style and the dominance of her inner circle, leading to divisions that weakened party unity.
  6. Emergency Rule (1975-1977): The imposition of a state of emergency during this period further intensified criticisms of her Kitchen Cabinet. Many viewed this as an attempt to consolidate power and suppress dissent, leading to widespread unrest and opposition.
  7. Failure to Address Key Issues: Critics pointed to the Kitchen Cabinet’s inability to effectively address pressing issues such as poverty, inflation, and food shortages, which contributed to growing discontent among the populace.

These criticisms highlight the challenges faced by Indira Gandhi’s government during her time in office and reflect broader concerns about governance, accountability, and democratic practices in India.

The process of recruitment in government job should be is based on fairness, impartiality and experience/ expertise based. It is based on the Favouritism and Nepotism.

K. Murugesan vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu

The case K. Murugesan vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, decided on November 4, 2020, by the Madras High Court, involved a writ petition concerning the appointment and promotion of government employees. Here are the key points regarding the court’s observations:

  1. Background: K. Murugesan, the petitioner, challenged the government’s decision regarding his appointment and promotion in light of certain procedural irregularities.
  2. Legal Framework: The court examined the relevant rules and regulations governing appointments within the Tamil Nadu government, focusing on whether the procedures were adhered to properly.
  3. Observations on Fairness: The court emphasized the necessity of fairness and transparency in government appointments, reiterating that any deviation from established procedures could lead to claims of favouritism or discrimination.
  4. Judicial Review: The Madras High Court highlighted its role in ensuring that administrative actions are within the bounds of legality and do not violate principles of natural justice.
  5. Outcome: The court directed the government to reconsider its decision regarding Murugesan’s appointment, ensuring that due process is followed in accordance with established rules.

This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding fairness in public service appointments and highlights the importance of adhering to procedural norms to prevent favouritism and ensure equal opportunity for all candidates.

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) Exam 2021

The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) Exam 2021 has been embroiled in controversy, with allegations of favouritism, nepotism, and corruption. Here are the key points regarding the situation:

  1. CBI Investigation: The Chhattisgarh cabinet has recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities in the CGPSC 2021 recruitment process. This decision follows complaints that many selected candidates were relatives of bureaucrats and politicians, raising concerns about nepotism in the selection process.
  2. Allegations of Question Paper Tampering: The CBI has claimed that Taman Singh Sonwani, the former chairman of CGPSC, shared exam question papers with his nephews before the exam. This manipulation allegedly facilitated their selection for state services. The CBI filed charges against Sonwani and several others for their involvement in this scheme.
  3. Public Outcry and Political Reactions: The release of the CGPSC 2021 selection list sparked widespread protests and demands for transparency from aspiring candidates and opposition parties. Many candidates noted that individuals with familial ties to officials were disproportionately represented at the top of the merit list.
  4. Calls for Reform: A state-level organization of CGPSC aspirants is reviving demands for reforms in the PSC examination process to ensure transparency and fairness. They have petitioned for measures such as providing scorecards and response sheets to candidates.
  5. Legal Proceedings: There is an ongoing petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking intervention to reform the examination process amid allegations of irregularities.
  6. Allegations of Concealment: Reports indicate that some candidates’ surnames were deliberately concealed in the selection list to hide their connections to government officials, further fuelling accusations of favouritism.
  7. Corruption Claims: Former Chief Minister Raman Singh has called for a CBI investigation into these allegations, emphasizing that corruption in PSC selections is a significant issue.

This situation highlights serious concerns regarding integrity in public service appointments issues related to favouritism and nepotism within governmental recruitment processes in India.

The efficiency and effectiveness of such appointments creates a serious threat to the society as a whole. 

Effects of spoil system 

The spoils system leads to corruption and inefficient government since the political loyalists and friends of winning party is positioned in government jobs.

Spoil System can be called Nepotism, Favouritism or Localism. Party members are favoured rather than eligible and eminent persons for the role.

The spoils system, where government positions are given to political supporters rather than based on merit, has several negative effects:

  • Compromise in efficiency and competency: Efficiency and effectiveness of a government is determined by its eminent administrators, it is very crucial role to be filled in a government appointment of family members and party workers compromising the position of effective administrators renders the government inefficient and incompetent.
  • Corruption: The spoils system is always a corrupt system, as loyalty to a political party becomes more important than running an efficient government. This can lead to bribery and theft of public funds. 
  • Civil servant changes along with the party: When a new party takes over the old one, however qualified civil servants they may be are often replaced with new, unqualified person’s being appointed to the post leading to instable government.
  • Party member becomes public employee: since the party members are in most of the crucial public service they work for the party than for the government, hence funding for their next campaign becomes easy.
  • Abuse of Political Power: By misusing their power more party members are involved in the government activities creating a monopoly. 
  • Unstable Bureaucracy: The system can create an unstable, poorly qualified, and elderly bureaucracy.
  • Undermines Meritocracy: It allows those with political influence to ascend to powerful positions within the government, regardless of their level of experience or skill.
SUGGESTION
  1. The concept of favouritism prevails in the society, since human evolved hence built in human conscience it cannot be easily changed, it is seen even in a family among our dear ones hence it cannot be avoided but when it comes to public need and welfare of the society as a whole it is good to broaden the minds and think for the greater good of the society than to please and reward a few people. 
  2. As Artha sastra suggests government employment should be made in fair, transparent manner in order to build a firm, strong and better country.
  3. Every leader and every government servants should be consciously aware rewarding party members by favouring them with government job doesn’t last longer because ones desires and want is never satisfied, it is better to focus to build a better government as directed to us through Artha Sastra and some of our model leaders like KAMARAJAR former chief minister of Tamil Nadu. Hence as the country grows so does the party and the members and supporters grow as well. 
  4. It is to keep in mind primary moto to act in good faith and for the greater good of the society.
CONCLUSION

Favouritism in appointments to public posts is considered a denial of equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. This principle has been established in various cases, emphasizing that arbitrary or discriminatory actions in appointments violate fundamental rights. Democratic country like India must eradicate the spoil system and develop merit based system like our neighbouring countries Canada, Singapore, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. Such systems aim to enhance efficiency and fairness in public service recruitment and immigration processes, contributing to better governance and economic outcomes.

Research Paper by 

Gayathri. M

School of Excellence in Law

Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University

Chennai.