Many countries, either voluntarily or by law, appoint officials to sensitive geographic or security positions who do not belong to those areas, sects, or tribes. This strategy is often adopted outside of advanced countries to prevent ethnic, familial, religious, or sectarian bias. It can offer significant benefits when senior officials are selected and appointed through a sound and transparent process.
However, this strategy can become dangerous if misused or implemented in a tense environment without strong institutional support. One advantage of this decision is the reduction of conflicts of interest. Officials appointed from outside the local community or their immediate work environment are generally less influenced by pressures from family, tribe, sect, or nepotism.
This helps ensure a more impartial and fair application of the law. Such appointments also strengthen loyalty to the institution rather than to local affiliations. As a result, senior officials are more committed to the state, the law, and the administrative system, rather than being swayed by narrow local or familial networks that might pressure them to bend rules or make decisions benefiting their social circle. This method helps break down stereotypes among different segments of society and encourages daily communication and positive interaction, rather than limiting relationships to tense media or political contexts.
It reinforces the principle of citizenship above sub-identities. When people see an official from another region or sect performing his duties professionally and respectfully, it strengthens the understanding that public office is national rather than local, and that competence, not narrow affiliation, is the basis for selection. This method also widens the experience and skills of officials, whether governors or teachers, enhancing their ability to understand new social patterns and interact with diverse subcultures, languages, and dialects.
These skills are essential in modern public service, particularly as most forms of favoritism and direct familial pressure have diminished. As a result, officials find it easier to say “no” when asked to violate the law. However, the approach becomes problematic if appointments are used abusively or provocatively, for example, assigning an official known for hostility toward a particular group to a region dominated by that group. Therefore, a prerequisite for the success of this type of appointment is a clear institutional framework that protects the official’s independence while requiring engagement with representatives of the local community, including local councils, civil society organizations, tribal groups, and religious or sectarian bodies.
Transparent criteria for competence and promotion must be followed, and local personnel should be supported by a team from the community to ensure that people feel their voices are heard within the administration, while the senior official remains above local divisions. The approach can be further strengthened by appointing civilian officials to religious or military institutions, particularly for functions that are non-religious and non-military in nature.
By Ahmad alsarraf
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
