After 50 years, and as much as we would like to think otherwise, Jamaica is, in several respects, worse off than it was at the time of Independence in 1962.

This is certainly true in the areas of crime, economic growth, per capita income, and education. Almost all of the decline or failure are due to bad politics, with both of our major political parties guilty of poor administration, corruption and mismanagement, especially in the handling of the national debt, unemployment and the depreciation of the Jamaican dollar.

The symptoms are manifested in corruption, differing political philosophies, incompetence, dishonesty to the public, and political partisanship as a means of distributing scarce benefits. Underlying all of this is entrenched tribalism which destroys the possibility of political management dedicated to the national interest.

The paranoia about loyalty manifests itself in two perverse ways: as “inter-party political tribalism” where Labourites and Socialists do not work together and as “intra-party personality cultism” where there is no trust between factions loyal to different political personalities.

These twin afflictions of party leaders/prime ministers undermine competence in public service. First, by excluding from eligibility all those not connected to the ruling party and second, by favouring those expressly loyal to the party leader. This further narrows the already limited pool of talent willing to enter the political arena.

Intra-party political cultism promotes loyalty over skill in selecting Cabinet members and appointing persons to important posts, eg chairmen of boards. The obsession with loyalty goes even further to decide which party members get what. Who can forget the internecine warfare between Messrs Robert Lightbourne, Wilton Hill and Edward Seaga in the late 1960s.

Today, Prime Minister Simpson Miller’s Cabinet is loaded with loyalists and a marked absence of persons who supported Dr Peter Phillips, despite their contribution to the successful election campaign.

If the person is a loyalist who is in need of an income or pension, then skill and experience become irrelevant. Note the number of Cabinet ministers who become high commissioners or heads of institutions. We will not, in this space, call names, in order not to embarrass anyone.

Loyalty can be a virtue, but in a poor, developing country like Jamaica, it is unforgivable that loyalty to the leader and need for income have always proven to be more important than skill and capacity for service in the selection of Cabinets. It is especially egregious when it is the only attribute.

As we go forward into the next half century of nationhood, we hope that persons named to the Cabinet will be selected on merit. This means their appointment must be based on their proven capacity, relevant experience, knowledge of the portfolio subject, and demonstrated managerial skill. Given that choice is largely restricted to those elected to the House, it may not be possible to satisfy all the desired criteria but at least one.