Running for office . . .

Is love of country . . . ?

That is according to the gospel of Estrada and Arroyo? If it is simply ego they can be forgiven – leaders have huge egos; it takes a humongous ego to run and govern. But politics stinks (or sucks?) in our country. And the only way they can rise above is to spell out their intentions and what they will do for the country. But it will take generations to fix our mess; so what’s their point?

What are our options? Noynoy or Villar? Villar, unfortunately, is declared clean in part but not wholly? Noynoy is assumed to be – given the genes of the mother. But as we now know Bush 43 is not Bush 41! Our country needs help, big time. And it will not come from this pool of candidates? They’re more of the same?

Best-practice benchmarking is not inherent in governing as it is in private business. And given our focus on personality politics, we are letting our politicians get away with murder. The writer made a similar point to a conservative New York Times columnist before and during the tenure of Bush.

Bush was a product of American politics especially the conservative element – he had the right name, family tree and connections. But it did not make him the ideal candidate for US president. And it was easy to stick it to the columnist: “I told you so!” (Unfortunately, Obama isn’t keeping to the 80-20 rule – and his inability to deliver quick hits is glaring; the jury is still out if he can do the big bangs.)

The UK civil service system has been perceived as best practice in public administration. Many years ago though in private business, it was one of many the writer checked out specific to how they hired people. And he tracked down a principal consultant in Dublin. The exercise confirmed critical elements that must not be overlooked in recruiting. For instance: What trying conditions does the job demand? What conditions has the aspirant encountered in previous jobs? How do they match? How specifically did the aspirant respond to these conditions? How did he or she demonstrate upholding the integrity of job, say, presidency if that was the job? Did he or she pass the Caesar’s wife test? How did he or she demonstrate bold thinking and astute planning on a large scale; did he or she successfully execute? How did he or she demonstrate incremental thinking? How did he or she distinguish between the two? Net, it’s not enough to tout one’s leadership and success; we must dig deep into their critical elements to peel off the veneer.

If for competitive purposes private business would seek the best practice – wherever – in selecting its people, shouldn’t we given our sorry plight as a country, seek the best way to asses our candidates?

It can be the start of developing transparency in governing if we as a people put these candidates to a test? Media needs to be more aggressive and assertive? Private business and academia should join hands to develop the yardstick by which we must measure these candidates? And the media and the Church should focus the nation in scrutinizing them? And the Church and civic organizations should educate the vulnerable how not to sell their votes? Of course, politicians can also turn around and point a finger at industry, the media, the Church and all of us – it takes a nation as a whole to perform as badly as we have?

We can’t continue to feel good that we’re minding our own business, and thus be complacent about the plight of the country? We’re a disaster (if we assume for a moment that we won’t accept being the basket case of the region) and yet we’re behaving like we’re taking a walk in the park? Then we don’t have the right to scream how bad and corrupt our politicians are? In a democracy, we get the leaders that we deserve!