The Perils of Nepotism

I was just reading a review in The Economist of Francis Fukayama's new book, The Origins of Political Order. The review made me think differently about nepotism, a government ethics issue that is usually considered rather minor.

Some people may know that the Catholic Church instituted priestly celibacy in the late 11th century in order to prevent the Church from becoming a second aristocracy, handing on the Church's lands and power to the children of Church leaders. But according to the review, Fukayama says that celibacy was also "vital in the battle against corruption and rent-seeking in the church, both of which were the typical consequences of patrimony. The reforms gave the church the moral stature to evolve into ... 'a modern, hierarchical, bureaucratic and law-governed institution,'" and this in turn "set the ground rules for the subsequent rise of the secular state."

In other words, priestly celibacy in order to prevent nepotistic rule of the Catholic Church led inexorably to modern government. Nepotism and modern government do not go together. It may seem nice to have the police chief hand over power to his son, but this is effectively creating a small-time aristocracy that is not consistent with our form of government.

Fukayama also looks at China's dynasties in terms of nepotism, which he calls "patrimony." He notes that the Han Dynasty was vulnerable to what the reviewer calls "the hardwired human tendency to make ties of kinship the primary criterion for conferring wealth, power and status."

Fukyama came up with something of a rule on this topic: "There is an inverse correlation between the strength of the centralized state and the strength of patrimonial groups. Tribalism ... remains a default form of political organization, even after a modern state has been created."

Chinese emperors and others found one good way to undermine nepotism:  employing eunuchs in senior positions. Another solution, employed by Muslim rulers especially, was the institution of military slavery and the creation of one-generation nobility, where elite slave troops were not allowed to marry. These are drastic responses to what some consider a minor problem.

Why did these systems (other than priestly celibacy, which became something else entirely) come to an end? One reason is that the eunuchs and slaves became powerful interest groups, subverting the states they had been created to defend. The societies fell back on good ol' nepotism.

Nepotism rarely subverts a local government, but it can ruin morale, lead to more corruption, discriminate against people who are not in the position to hand power on to members of their families, and cause new groups to follow the old ways when they do attain power.

Americans love dynasties, but they hate nepotism. I never liked nepotism, but I hadn't realized how destructive it can be, and how much of the history of government has been a response to forms of nepotism.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---