The inefficient system of executive appointments has diverted the country from the path of development for four decades now, resulting in a massive loss of human resources and irreparable waste of opportunities, said Morteza Afqeh, an economist and university professor, in an article for the Persian daily Ta’adol. A translation of the article follows:
Several preconditions must be met for fostering economic progress, public welfare and eventually all-round development.
The first is having the desire for development. It is impossible to achieve economic progress in a society that sees material life in conflict with its philosophical view.
The second precondition is that the society must be ready to pay the price for achieving it. If the leaders of the society claim that they are seeking common prosperity but fail to pay its cost, the society will not achieve development. The cost of achieving development is the acceptance of it logical entailments. To reach development, the society needs to dismiss anti-development perceptions, traditions, habits and behaviors, and favor public interests over individual interests.
The third precondition is the appropriate use of opportunities and means to achieve the goal of development.
In today’s world, it is impossible to achieve development goals without exploiting it to provide for material and spiritual needs. But there is only one way of gaining dominance over nature and that’s wisdom and intellect, as natural resources and financial and physical assets are meaningless in the absence of skilled human capital.
Political, Ideological Considerations
This explanation describes the reason why Iran has failed to embark on the path to development and prosperity after more than four decades since the Islamic Revolution despite having God-given riches of natural resources in the form of oil and gas as well as physical and financial capital inherited from previous generations.
You can rightly blame this failure on the fact that the country deprived itself of all human resources at the very beginning of the revolution. The strict political and ideological considerations might be justifiable, given the precarious situation of the early years of the Islamic Republic and the Iran-Iraq War, but the continuation of this policy, 43 years into the establishment of the system, is unjustifiable. Political and ideological considerations have deprived the country of the vital means needed for achieving economic progress and prosperity, while obscuring the prospect of achieving this key goal.
After four decades, this narrow-mindedness in employing specialized, dedicated and patriotic workforce has not been resolved; it has even gained deeper dimensions at various levels. Such an approach has been extended to not only top-level appointees and Cabinet picks, but also to middle managers and civil employees. This approach has led a large number of skilled, specialized, motivated and dedicated workers to either go overseas, or to face isolation and problems at home.
Perhaps the lack of understanding on the part of decision-makers about the crucial role of human resources in the country’s development has led to the constant and large outflow of the elite; such a crisis hardly raises eyebrows among top government officials.
Unaccountability Becomes Pervasive
The delegation of responsibility has now changed into distribution of concessions, which indicates another fundamental dysfunction in the system of appointments in all branches of the government and agencies.
For years now, many people have been eying management positions as a privilege, with some jockeying vehemently for positions of power.
As appointments are largely based on partisan, political, ethnic and familial relationships, evaluations are usually biased, and the performance of individuals, their work and organizational commitments are overlooked.
In other words, responsibility in the country has lost its true meaning (i.e. being accountable). Responsibility has turned into a privilege for owners, when one’s term of office comes to an end, they are rarely questioned about their performance (yet, managers might sometimes be grilled for political disputes and rivalries).
The same practice has emboldened individuals in the race for executive positions because they are confident that by taking these positions, they will gain access to material and financial privileges without the pressure of being evaluated for their performance.
This inefficient procedure in the system of government appointments has led to a stage where the conflict of personal and public interests is not observed in many cases. This is probably the worst and most harmful approach in selecting managers.
For years, managers have been elected to decision-making bodies that manage private companies alongside their government responsibilities (either they already had these companies or established them during their tenure by exerting political power).
Obviously, in the absence of an impartial and efficient evaluation system, these managers tend to prioritize their personal interests over public interests. The whole thing generates astronomical incomes for a particular group and hurts the public.
Fortunately, the widespread, popular social media platforms and a group of media activists reveal the names and inefficiencies of these directors. However, no legal action has been taken yet to end this unpleasant phenomenon.
