As I look at the talking heads on TV, answering questions about everything from contraception to corruption in a bid to snag my vote, I ask myself, “If I had a business, who would I want running it?”
Would I place my money on a career underachiever with no track record for consistent (or even ANY substantial) output? Would I invest in the talents of a late bloomer whose competence is mediocre at best? (But, hey, he seems like a safe compromise who won't lose me TOO much money.)
Would I back someone whose pricey PR machine has reinvented him as the ideal candidate, even if I see no other proof apart from catchy sound bytes?
Think about it. If your business had to sink or swim on someone's ability, who among those faces you see on TV would be the someone you choose?
Choosing a President must be a business decision.
I bet majority—or even ALL—of those faces masquerading as the ideal leader of our country would cause you sleepless nights if they were in charge of your business.
The Philippines is found wanting a true system of meritocracy in politics and government. Just try applying for a government post (as I did in my foolish youth) and see how far you go without a backer (It took me two years!).
The beginning of a meritocracy has often marked the end of primitive societies throughout history. China's first dynasty, the Xià Dynasty, is an example. Considered the end of the primitive and the start of the class society in China, it was also the era where a system of meritocracy was born. Leaders ascended to power based on talent and ability, not who their backer was or how rich they were.
Yu the Great set up China's first meritocracy. But when he passed away, his son made himself Xià emperor. Thus began a hereditary system that bred many tyrants. Granted there were good leaders who came to power through heredity but nonetheless proved to be a positive influence on society, the bad outnumbered the good.