I have seen that many here support the idea of a philosopher king. Many here were dissatisfied with the way our country is currently governed. Many find the system corrupt and inefficient, with the power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, and alas, the incompetent, or so many of you will say.
It seems that a many of the criticism in the system involves actors and boxers holding political power. While I have no reason to protect their image, and indeed, in a glance, it may be tempting to say that they are in fact incompetent, I still feel bad that people feel that these persons are incompetent simply because of their past careers before becoming politicians. Many of us tends to have this idea that actors and sports figures are a bunch of fools who know nothing in governing and holding political power. I’m not saying they know, but I believe it is unfair to judge them as incompetent simply because they are actors or boxers or simply because their educational attainment is somewhat according to some standards lacking. Let it be known that one doesn’t need a college education at the best universities to be able to comprehend politics or lead the country. We cannot measure a man’s competence by his ability to speak in a tongue foreign to him, because the ability to speak in English or even Tagalog is not really a true measure of ability, intelligence or competence. Remember that knowledge, wisdom and intelligence are three different things that don’t often go together. We must also remember that all of these things (knowledge, wisdom and intelligence) don’t necessarily transfer to performance. After all, if all we need are competent leaders, then our country should be out of poverty now. Look at the list of the Presidents of this Republic, along with the members of the Supreme Court, many government agencies, the Senate and the Congress and you will find there tons of Bar Topnotchers, UP alumni and other graduates of international universities. To say that leadership in this country have fallen in the hands of incompetents will be too much of a far fetch. Even our favourite boxer-lawman is a college graduate of Notre Dame University, if memory serves me right. The will to get things done for me is the more important part of being a leader, not the qualifications. A leader only needs to have a certain sense of right and wrong, what he wants to accomplish and the way that he wants them to be accomplished. The details can be easily filled in by a competent staff. After all, we cannot expect any one of us to know everything about all the issues of governance. We don’t expect someone trained as a lawyer (like most o our leaders) to fully comprehend the fact that the Philippines is biodiversity hotspot and that some parts of the country are home to endangered flora and fauna. Even the best minds in the leadership game have staffs and advisers as well as experts to look for advice. Hence, a leader need not know everything or even anything about an issue because there is an expert in any field known to man. What we need is a leader who can make the decision needed after the data have been proposed to him. Decision making is something you can do without the benefit of a fancy education. All it needs is some critical thinking, which can only be honed, not learned. And this ability can be honed not just in a classroom. For me, a leader’s job is to gather as much information as possible about a subject (through his staff) then make a decision based on what he believes in. Of course, when I say information, that involves the pros and the cons involved, not just some mind numbing figures.
I’m not saying that we should elect actors and sports figures to leadership. What I say is we should stop looking at their previous careers as something that says that they are not fit for public service. Many of them won the election fair and square (although that is arguable). Although some of them are known to be failures, let us not relate their failures to the fact that they were not competent and qualified because they were “just” actors or sports personalities before. Or to be blunt, please give Manny Pacquiao a chance.
Nicoli Borromeo
People are not judging them (or maybe they are), but maybe a more appropriate term is ‘assess’ not ‘judge’. Ofcourse people need to think well on whom they should vote among the candidates for a certain position. They must assess the candidates’ capabilities and weaknesses. Also, to vote for someone, people will surely look for the candidates’ backgrounds. By that, they can compare on who is better and who is worse. For example, in the list of candidates, there is this artist and a lawyer. Both are willing for the position, both thinks that they are capable for it, but for sure only one of them is qualified. So, why not choose the person who is both willing and qualified. And to relate this to your other point, which is –
ReplyDelete‘The will to get things done for me is the more important part of being a leader, not the qualifications.’ I think ‘qualifications’ is more important. And most of those qualified leaders are also willing but not all willing leaders are qualified. Many people in the world are willing to be a politician, such as, the tambays, lasenggeros, drug addicts, killers because all of them have their own philosophies on how to deal and manage on things but for sure, not all of them can do the right thing for the people in the country. That’s why I really think that ‘to be qualified’ is more important that ‘to be willing’. And to say that we must give Manny Pacquiao a chance, is just the same as giving my uncle, who is a drunkard and wants to be a president, a chance. This is not a lottery game! It is the governance we are talking about. Ang Pilipinas at ang mga tao dito ang nakasalalay. Lahat ay kailangang maging sigurado or at least kung anuman ang mas nakakasiguro tayo.
‘We cannot measure a man’s competence by his ability to speak in a tongue foreign to him, because the ability to speak in English or even Tagalog is not really a true measure of ability, intelligence or competence.’ – maybe what you are saying is true but obviously, knowing how to speak English or even Tagalog is very important for some positions in the government especially to one that Manny Pacquiao have. How can he communicate with the bright lawyers and politicians in the senate? Usually, people who can’t speak English can’t also understand English. (siguro konti, pero still not enough to comprehend a ‘political’ statement, which is normally complex) Imagine, when everyone in the senate is talking in English, can you really believe that everything they are saying ay naiintindihan ni Pacquiao? Maybe it is true that the ability to speak in a foreign tongue is not a measure of intelligence but for sure, it is very important for a leader to have so that he can bring and show his competence to the people.
‘Let it be known that one doesn’t need a college education at the best universities to be able to comprehend politics or lead the country.’ – Again, I believe this is true but what I think is that for a person to lead the country, he must have studied even just in a ‘normal’ university. Alam kong di kailangang na sa ‘best’ university pero sana may natapos man lang ang tao. Obviously, we don’t want our country to be lead by uneducated people.
ReplyDelete‘Remember that knowledge, wisdom and intelligence are three different things that don’t often go together. We must also remember that all of these things (knowledge, wisdom and intelligence) don’t necessarily transfer to performance.’ – I’m sorry, but I really don’t believe on these things. I know that knowledge, wisdom and intelligence are three different things but I still think that they usually go together. I don’t know, but can you site some examples on this. And also, I don’t see the relevance of this point on what we are discussing here. What does differentiating knowledge, wisdom and intelligence got to do with people ‘judging’ those stars and boxers who are also politicians? Moreover, I think that knowledge, wisdom and intelligence have something to do with performance because how could someone perform well if he does not know anything about what he is doing.
‘Hence, a leader need not know everything or even anything about an issue because there is an expert in any field known to man. What we need is a leader who can make the decision needed after the data have been proposed to him.’ – So what you are trying to say here is that, mas makakabuti kung magkakaroon ng election sa mga staffs kesa sa eleksiyon for a government position? Kasi kung decision-making lang naman, andaming tao dyan na marunong magdecide. We need a leader who is more than just a decision-maker. Every leader should know everything (or at least anything) about an issue, because if he knows nothing, then his decision will just be based on what his advisers told to him (which is maybe true or not). How can he be an effective leader, if is someone who can be easily manipulated by the people surrounding him?