The concerns raised over alleged backdoor appointments are not merely about procedural lapses. They point to a deeper crisis that goes beyond governance and enters the realm of public morality.
When recruitment rules are bypassed, it is not just a file that is mishandled. It is a young aspirant somewhere who studied for years, waited patiently, and trusted the system to be fair. Each irregular appointment silently closes a door on someone who played by the rules. This is where the issue stops being administrative and becomes ethical.
Why do such practices continue despite clear awareness that they are wrong?
Part of the answer lies in normalization. When irregular appointments occur repeatedly without consequences, they begin to feel less like violations and more like accepted shortcuts. Over time, the line between right and wrong blurs. Another factor is convenience. It is often easier to accommodate known individuals than to follow a lengthy and transparent process. There is also social pressure. In a closely connected society, personal relationships can weigh heavily on official decisions.
Yet none of these reasons justify the act.
At its core, a backdoor appointment is an act of exclusion. It denies equal opportunity. It undermines merit. It erodes trust in institutions that are meant to serve all citizens fairly. It sends a dangerous message that rules are flexible for some and rigid for others.
There is also a moral contradiction that cannot be ignored. Many who benefit from or facilitate such practices understand that the system is unjust. They would not accept the same treatment if they were on the losing side. This awareness makes the act not just wrong, but knowingly wrong.
The long term consequences are serious. When fairness is compromised, public confidence declines. When trust erodes, institutions weaken. And when institutions weaken, society as a whole pays the price.
This is not a problem that can be solved by policy alone. It requires introspection. It requires individuals at every level, from decision makers to beneficiaries, to ask a simple question: Is this right?
Rules exist to ensure fairness, but rules alone cannot sustain integrity. That must come from within. A system can only be as honest as the people who operate it.
The issue at hand is therefore not just about recruitment. It is about conscience. And unless that conscience is awakened, no reform will be complete.
