I don't think a Democratic system had that quality. Political leaders are elected by the majority, mostly based in other arguments but his competency. What allows a non-disfuntional Democracy is a rapid response when things fail. Its strength is its adaptability, which is capital in a changing world. However, its way of working is non-optimal, based in feedback modulated by the public opinion. In countries with a well-structured politically involved society, such as America, it works pretty well; but in others with inmature societies the result hardly resembles a Democracy.

In a Democracy the best are seldom elected. People only follow remarkable leaders in times of need, such during the American Revolution. That is one of the arguments used by Libertarians to defend a lessening in the roles of the government: it will be always more inefficient than the free market.

Some Dictatorships are more efficient than many Democracies, first of all because there is no corrupt political class, but the problem arises here when the competent Dictator dies and someone (who?) has to choose another leader.

Democracy is the best we have, but we must be aware of its defects.

Looks like a book on English Grammar was not amongst your 30,000, eh?

So let's say you're 50, and have been reading since you were 10, that's 40 years of reading. To read 30,000 books in that time, you'd have to read 750 books a year, or 2 per day. Seems like a lot. But then again, maybe you're actually 100, making your task a little easier at 1 book a day. Which is it?

Right, all the smart people go into "corporates".

Is this post intended to be sarcastic? I'm actually trying to conceive of someone ignorant enough to think such stupidity...especially after reading all those books!

Or, as Winston Churchill put it, democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others.

Brilliant!

Here, by stark contrast, we can see the difference between a liberal thinker and a thoughtless Liberal.

Wow: did occur to you that a gentleman named Tarek might not claim English as his native language? Visit http://www.heggy.org/ to learn a bit more about this distinguished Arab thinker.

Meanwhile--just for laughs--why not try translating his post into Arabic? And get your foot out of your mouth.

Interesting. While I don't dispute your comparisons, it seems to me you've considered the categories of personal characteristics and job requirements in too generalized a manner. I'd need more detailed analysis before concurring that the top executives of those major corporations could last more than a year in the leadership positions of any of the major democracies, before they were also perceived as jiggling jellies of ineptitude just like the ones you suggest we have now.

There are several things I would like to see considered. One is competition or lack thereof when making the comparisons, both in making government the seeming waste basket of talent and private enterprise the trophy case of talent you suggest. That competition ought to analyze foreign and domestic competition separately as much as is possible.

Another is the comparison of the differing natures of the command and control inherent in the private business and government enterprises. Having vision is good but implementing vision is quite different when considering the two. Having leadership is good too, but there is a huge difference between the two in having that leadership translate into results since the mix of who they are leading is so vastly different. What is the difference between the two in the category of "the art of the possible."

A final one, for this comment anyway, is whether your observation, after more consideration, says anything about the structure of government, i.e., should government be big or small, centralized or decentralized, and how it should be populated.

There are plenty of bad leaders/managers in corporations, too, but fewer than in government because of the Darwinian nature of business competition. Government leadership is also harmed by the implicit assumption that a law degree is a qualification for any job. This might have been true in 1840 when there were few educated people other than doctors and lawyers, but makes no sense now.

I'm not sure that IQ above 150 is a criterion for leadership in most situations. A reasonably high intelligence, combined with other attributes (empathy, imagination, communications ability, courage) seems to be what is called for. Also, I think there may be some truth in Peter Drucker's comment that if you don't have serious management responsbility before age 30 or so, you'll never learn it.

It would be interesting to compare government personnel in France with those in the US: culturally, talented people tend to be more attracted to government jobs there. I bet the average IQ of top government managers there is higher than here: whether that is reflected in performance is another question.

Government leadership is also harmed by the implicit assumption that a law degree is a qualification for any job.

I think Democracy is less about on how you get the post, but on how you are kicked out of office: by the public opinion in a bloodless manner.

It would be interesting to compare government personnel in France with those in the US

Very good point. Look the almighty Enarcs (from the ENA, National Administration School), the best France yields, look what they are doing to their own country.

I am much more concerned with the attitude of elected officials than I am with their inate capacities to do wonderful things. I think many of our problems today arise from the fact that our elected officials don't really see themselves as representatives, but rather as philospher kings who will lead us toward Utopia regardless of whether the majority of their constituents wish to go there or not. And this seems to be equally true of the unelected bureaucrats who seem to control our lives to an increasing degree.

Our culture and economy will evolve all by itself without the intervention of the Terminally Wise. Far too many of our leaders want to engage in one form of economic and/or social engineering or another, and I am beginning to suspect that it is simply not possible for any individual or group to accomplish this without the law of unintended consequences rearing its ugly head.

Wow: have you perhaps caught a clue that Mr. Heggy is not a native speaker?

Yeesh.

It is indeed true. It is even true in academia. Even there, I choose instead to teach children, rather than face the daily incompetence of the university.

Russ is correct. Tarek Heggy lives in Cairo, Egypt.

Not being a native English speaker is not even distantly an impediment to insight, if you please, all.

#8:Love "Our culture and economy will evolve all by itself without the intervention of the Terminally Wise."

Does anyone else recall "the Best and the Brightest", a really seminal look at the role of elitism in declaring war on a perceived less knowledgeable (3rd) world.

True! Tcobb, pls. email me, I'd like to use your "terminally wise" quote on my blog header for a little bit... with attribution, if you get with me.

Jason G. Williscroft wrote:

Wow: did occur to you that a gentleman named Tarek might not claim English as his native language?

That might be a defense to a newbie’s post but the individual in question has over two year’s worth of material on WoC in which language does not appear to have been an issue. See:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/cat_columnists_tarek_heggy.php

I’m not defending “Wow’s” snark (although I think his/her point was that the claim to have read “30,000 books on all social sciences and humanities” while earning a dozen post-graduate degrees seems . . . questionable) but there does seem to be a sudden deterioration in the quality of writing from someone with a two year track record of generally well-written posts in English.

Hey, maybe the guy finally blew a gasket in his head...try reading some of his drivel and you'll see what I mean.

One newbie question: does Professor Heggy ever post follow up comments in the discussions? He's certainly got a lot to defend, like the assertion that

"hat is why, most 0f the excellent graduates with above 150 IQ in the top 20 countries (from per capita GDP stand-point) go to corporates."

Unprovable voodoo (pardon my allusion) bull.