I really wanted to understand what a bootlicker is because it is widely used in my country Zambia. It is usually about political cadres who seek favour from people in authority. The same applies to institutions of work. In short, anywhere where there are authority and subordination, there are these characters. If you ask me, these guys referred to as bootlickers do make progress in their fields

And as I searched for the definition, two words came up; 

1.) Obsequious, meaning obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree. The other one is; 

2.) Servile, which means having or showing an extreme willingness to serve or please others. Also, means of or characteristic of a slave or slaves. This sounds familiar, isn’t it?

Some people pride themselves as bootlickers. They have invested so much in pleasing people in authority and can say it to your face that they are well connected even if they do not perform, they can still rise above you, and there is nothing you can do about it.

These people tend to have a high degree of respect for anyone in a position of power. And a higher degree of disregard for people without authority. It could be people below them or those at the same level as them.

To understand bootlickers, I remember a story of how humans and dogs became the best of friends. I remember the story, but what I don’t is how the story was told to me. I don’t know if I just read about it or someone narrated it to me. But that does not matter. I will just summarise it the way I understood it.

In the animal kingdom, you are either the hunter or the hunted. The dogs are hunters by nature, the same with humans. Before man and dog became friends, they hunted separately, but dogs noticed that man hunted well. And when a man sits to eat, he will not finish the meal, at least some bones with a great deal of meat will be leftover, and the dogs will clean up and be satisfied without the labor of hunting. So the dogs started trailing man’s moves to live on the left overs, and when noticed, man started giving bones and left over food to the dog. Later, the dog moved closer to the man and became the hunting partner, but man was the master, and the dog will help the man with hunting but will always eat leftover food. And the dog will not let anyone insult its master, and that is how come today, the dog is man’s best friend.

Yes, this sounds familiar in general, social, or work politics. I can relate the superior/subordinate relations, where bootlickers pride themselves to that of the dog and man as hunters.

From my point-of-view, it is not a good thing because this is a kind of relationship that brings compromise to systems and promotes corruption.
I don’t know what you think, but I would love to hear your thoughts if you relate.