Governments and Appointments
Governments must make appointments to fill positions that arise within their organizations. The consistency of appointments made determines the performance of government departments and weaponry. Individuals must be assigned positions in key government departments and organizations. Unlike elections, positions within these entities are filled by persons chosen by a small group of voters, such as nominating authorities, members of the executive, or committees. Minority parties have complained of being ignored in government appointments. This has created arguments where some individuals believe that appointments should achieve diversity even in cases where it compromises merit (Edelman et al., 1991). On the other hand, those opposed to this form of affirmative action feel that appointments should purely be based on merit. They prepone that appointing people to achieve diversity at the expense of merit compromises the ability of government organs to meet their respective mandates. This paper proposes that diversity should not be a major factor for appointees. Instead, the relevant stakeholders should focus on elevating the status of the minority groups in order to meet the set standards for appointment.
The Potential of the Population
The country’s population presents a pool of various skills and knowledge that the government can utilize in achieving its mandate. The potential within the population is tapped through appointments to offices (Pusser, 2012). Most appointments are conducted on a competitive basis where the appointing authority must set up mechanisms to ensure that the qualifications of all those interested are evaluated and only the best are chosen. The competitiveness tends to motivate individuals who have prospects of becoming political appointees to work hard in education and maintain integrity to increase their chances of success (Niederle et al., 2013).
Imbalances and Solutions
Making political appointments to achieve diversity distracts stakeholders from real solutions to the problem of imbalances in the socioeconomic factors within the society. Bridging these imbalances require improving the ability of the members of the minority groups to access education and career development opportunities. However, appointing them to offices without considering merit gives them a feeling that they do not need to acquire education and skills to compete with members of other groups. In addition, appointing to achieve diversity undermines qualified individuals from majority groups. This means that all applicants do not have equal opportunity of being appointed. In addition, it means that less deserving individuals will be given responsibilities. The fact that they do not possess all the qualifications to meet the responsibilities means that they may not achieve good results.
Ensuring Balance
The best way to ensure that there is a balance between various groups when it comes to political appointments is giving the disadvantaged individuals an opportunity to improve their skills. This enables them to compete for appointments on the basis of merit (Orfield, 2001). When this is done, it is unlikely that those left out on the basis of merit will feel disgruntled. Differences in the ability of individuals to access education and career opportunities has existed in many societies for a long time. These have created a pressing need to have the disadvantaged in positions that they do not qualify as a way of compensating them for historical injustices and achieve diversity (Pusser, 2012). This is not the appropriate way of solving the problem. It leaves other qualified and more deserving people unsatisfied about the system. It also demotivates the members of minority groups from acquiring the necessary skills for these appointments.
References
Edelman, L. B., Petterson, S., Chambliss, E., & Erlanger, H. S. (1991). Legal ambiguity and the politics of compliance: Affirmative action officers’ dilemma. Law & Policy, 13(1), 73-97.
Niederle, M., Segal, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2013). How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Management Science, 59(1), 1-16.
Orfield, G. (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action. Harvard Education Publishing Group, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 8 Story St., 5th floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Pusser, B. (2012). Burning down the house: Politics, governance, and affirmative action at the University of California. SUNY Press.
