I've noticed that host communities tend to exercise dominance in the federal establishments within it. Does this mean that the organisation is exclusive to them. This is demonstrated in how they treat someone coming from another place into that organisation as if it's not a federal one. There tends to be a whole lot of nepotism, tribalism, favoritism just to mention a few.
This is is of great significance because it has deprived a lot of people important things. Some can relate that they've been deprived promotion, some spirits have been dampened and so on. it's more than how we see it.
So my question now is that is this possessive attitude of theirs justifiable or not? I've noticed that host communities tend to exercise dominance in the federal establishments within it. Does this mean that the organisation is exclusive to them. This is demonstrated in how they treat someone coming from another place into that organisation as if it's not a federal one. There tends to be a whole lot of nepotism, tribalism, favoritism just to mention a few.
This is is of great significance because it has deprived a lot of people important things. Some can relate that they've been deprived promotion, some spirits have been dampened and so on. it's more than how we see it.
So my question now is that is this possessive attitude of theirs justifiable or not? I've noticed that host communities tend to exercise dominance in the federal establishments within it. Does this mean that the organisation is exclusive to them. This is demonstrated in how they treat someone coming from another place into that organisation as if it's not a federal one. There tends to be a whole lot of nepotism, tribalism, favoritism just to mention a few.
This is is of great significance because it has deprived a lot of people important things. Some can relate that they've been deprived promotion, some spirits have been dampened and so on. it's more than how we see it.
So my question now is that is this possessive attitude of theirs justifiable or not?

obviously NO... tnx

You enforce an Agreement not a law. Otherwise it's slavery.

We thought we elected a Democrat not a slave-driver as our President. The President must see and listen to solve problems of different communities.

simplyhonest:
obviously NO... tnx

.
It's Yes. The F.G is serving not commanding.

Man, you are very right. Nevertheless, there is still some level of sanity in Southwest as regards that madness.

Its their land. That's why they are host community. You don't take away land and leave no benefits for the owners

simplyhonest:
obviously NO... tnx

.

The F.G must always observe the thin line between serving and command in control.
It's people we are serving not cows. You must serve them as they wish not as you wish.

hurumnanya:
Its their land. That's why they are host community. You don't take away land and leave no benefits for the owners

oh really?