Tribalism and administrative decision-making
Tribalism and Administrative Decision-Making
What is Tribalism?
Tribalism refers to strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or ethnic group, often leading to favoritism, discrimination, or exclusion of others based on group identity. In many countries, especially those with significant indigenous or ethnic minority populations, tribalism influences politics, governance, and social relations.
Tribalism in Administrative Decision-Making
When tribalism enters administrative decision-making, it can result in:
Bias or favoritism toward members of a particular tribe or ethnic group.
Discrimination or marginalization of minority tribes or groups in public administration.
Allocation of resources, jobs, or benefits based on tribal affiliation rather than merit or equality.
Undermining of neutrality and fairness in governance.
Conflict and instability, especially in multi-ethnic societies.
Why It Matters
Administrative decisions should be guided by principles of fairness, equality, and justice rather than tribal loyalties. Tribalism challenges these principles, often leading to legal disputes and constitutional questions regarding equality, non-discrimination, and good governance.
Case Laws Illustrating Tribalism and Administrative Decision-Making
1. State of Bihar v. Kripalani (1962) – India
Facts: Bihar’s state government was accused of favoring certain caste and tribal groups in government jobs and administrative appointments.
Issue: Whether administrative decisions based on caste or tribe violated constitutional provisions on equality.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that while affirmative action (reservations) to uplift disadvantaged groups is permissible, outright favoritism without constitutional backing violates the principle of equality.
Significance: The case drew a line between legitimate affirmative action and unlawful tribal favoritism in administrative decisions.
2. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) – UK
Facts: Although not about tribalism directly, this case dealt with administrative discretion and the requirement for fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Issue: Whether administrative decisions should be free from bias or favoritism.
Ruling: The Court held that administrative powers must be exercised fairly and reasonably, emphasizing the rule of law over arbitrary or biased decision-making.
Significance: The principle laid down here applies to any form of tribal or group bias in administration—it must be prevented to ensure lawful governance.
3. Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v. Attorney General (2012) – Kenya
Facts: Allegations of tribal bias in distribution of government resources and appointments were brought against the Kenyan government.
Issue: Whether such biased administrative decisions violated constitutional principles of non-discrimination.
Ruling: The court declared that tribalism in administrative decisions undermines national unity and violates constitutional mandates for equality.
Significance: This case set a strong precedent in African jurisprudence against tribalism in public administration.
4. The Ogiek Case – African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2017)
Facts: The Ogiek community, an indigenous tribe in Kenya, faced eviction from ancestral lands by government authorities.
Issue: Whether the eviction and administrative actions violated the tribe’s rights to land and equality.
Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the Ogiek, emphasizing protection of indigenous peoples from discriminatory administrative decisions influenced by tribalism or ethnic bias.
Significance: Highlights the need to protect marginalized tribes from unfair administrative actions rooted in ethnic prejudice.
5. Mandla v. Dowell Lee (1983) – UK
Facts: This case involved a Sikh boy who was denied admission to a school because of his ethnic and religious identity.
Issue: Whether the refusal was discriminatory under race relations law.
Ruling: The House of Lords recognized ethnic origin as a protected characteristic, and discriminatory administrative decisions based on tribal/ethnic identity were unlawful.
Significance: This case is a landmark against ethnic discrimination in administrative decision-making.
6. East African Asians Case (1973) – UK Court of Appeal
Facts: The UK government’s decision to limit immigration from East African Asian communities raised issues of ethnic bias.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion exercised was reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Ruling: The courts emphasized that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly, without racial or ethnic bias.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that administrative decisions should not be influenced by ethnic or tribal considerations.
Summary of Key Takeaways
Tribalism in administrative decision-making often leads to discrimination and unfairness.
Courts across jurisdictions have emphasized constitutional equality, fairness, and non-discrimination in administrative actions.
Affirmative action policies can be constitutional if based on clear legal principles rather than mere tribal favoritism.
Protection of indigenous and minority groups from administrative bias is a key theme in several landmark rulings.
Judicial review plays a crucial role in curbing tribalism in public administration and ensuring that administrative powers are exercised fairly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments