“Crony” was first popularised among students in the 1660s. The word derived from the Greek khronos (time) and in contrast with the negative associations it has today, originally referred to nothing more than close, long lasting friendship
The idea of this friendship being used for profit was only introduced in the nineteenth century. British army captain Arthur Conolly (1807 – 1842) travelled extensively in Central Asia. He became well known as a travel writer, documenting his experiences in Russia, Persia and Afghanistan and notably sharing details of his alliance with a diplomat “with whom I have established great cronyism”.
From the 1950s onward, the crony became emblematic of unfairness. The notion of politicians or business leaders favouring allies with better jobs and greater rewards than they deserved struck a chord with the public, and many reputations have been tarnished by accusations of cronyism. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair will hope that history doesn’t remember him as the leader of “Tony’s Cronies”, a handy label for those who gained positions of power on his coat-tails. And in the world of sport, accusations of cronyism regularly fly thick and fast. The prestige of hosting an Olympics or a World Cup leads to intense lobbying for favour from organisations such as the IOC and FIFA.
So does cronyism pay? Undoubtedly many major political and commercial decisions have been swayed in this way, but the life of Arthur Conolly makes an interesting case study. He died aged only 34, executed for spying in what is now Uzbekistan. Conolly was captured while attempting the rescue of one of his fellow officers and “cronies”. It seems that the man who advocated profiting from relationships sacrificed his life in an unselfish act of duty and friendship.
Did you like the article? Then please like and share it on Facebook, tweet it on Twitter or add it in Google+.
