we accuse the govt of being nepotistic by appointing friends and relatives as high ranking officials. but i feel it's in our culture to do so.
out of loyalty and affection, parents would appoint their kids as ceos or other high ranking executive positions even when they are not ceo-qualified and lack the vision and leadership to be a ceo. over the years, i've seen businesses built by good businessmen and businesswomen being bankrupt by an incompetent and arrogant second or third generation.
if i own a business and appoint my son or daughter as ceo purely on relationship grounds, isn't that a form of nepotism? but if i want to be nepotistic and appoint my friends as relatives as high ranking company executives - that is my business; i have the right to do run my business as i choose. but the difference between is that the govt is handling public money.
is this the case all over the world? did bill gates appoint his son as his successor? bill gates' kids will enjoy gates' share in m$. but they don't automatically qualify to be leading executives in the company just because they are bill gates' kids.
so the next time we accuse the govt (or previous govts) of being nepotistic and favoring their friends and relatives, we might be hypocritical.