Politics and the Charisma of Competence

Political Competence

Politics is one of the easiest places to see how competence is prioritized over character in today’s society. Think about the last time you supported, admired, or defended a political leader. Was it because you trusted their integrity, or because they seemed competent enough to fix the problem? For some reason, this is not a question we ask often enough, yet it determines whether we can truly trust those who say they are ready to govern people. Many times, people are shocked when a leader who was chosen or elected for their competence begins to act strangely under pressure, as though the pressure revealed a different version of the leader. Suddenly, the once celebrated hero starts to look like a tyrant, and their kindness becomes strategic, counting towards the next election. We then normalize it by saying, “That is just how politics works”, instead of asking whether the signs of an unstable character was always there before us and we simply excused it or ignored it. This is not to say competence is negative or that it doesn't matter, it does. No nation wants a leader who means well but cannot lead. Good intentions alone cannot govern a people, manage resources, protect citizens, build institutions, or make wise decisions under pressure. However, in modern politics, leaders are often judged mainly by the metric of competence, and not together with character. This is particularly dangerous because, as explored in the previous reflections, character is the foundation that sustains competence. A leader chosen only by competence is like a building raised high with no deep foundation. It may look impressive for a while, but it will eventually struggle to handle the weight of power and the pressure placed on that position.

Politics and Machiavellianism

Much of modern politics is rooted in Machiavellian precepts, especially the idea commonly summarized as “the end justifies the means.” In simple terms, whatever needs to be done must be done, even if something or someone stands in the way. But what happens when the people themselves become what is “in the way”? What happens when a leader with no clear principles or boundaries decides that a few, or even many, must be sacrificed in the name of doing whatever it takes? When we think about questions like this, it becomes hard to ignore the consequences that comes with supporting a leader based on their competence only. So why do we rarely ask these questions until it's too late? People often fall into the trap of the alluring competence of political leaders today because most times, they are tired, disappointed, angry, or desperate for change, and a leader who seems competent becomes the automatic "perfect" option. Competence is built on results delivered and that can be very convincing when it is working for your side. It can make people feel part of something powerful. But when that same competence turns against the people who once benefited from it, an era of illusioned celebration can quickly turn to an era of bondage. This is where the paradox of competence becomes clear: it is impressive until it is used against you. By now, it's become clear that if competence is a required metric, it still does not have the ability to govern itself towards the right direction. Something must govern it. If it is not governed by character, truth, humility, justice, restraint, or the fear of God, then it will be governed by ego, appetite, ambition, public praise, or personal will. So maybe the questions to ask is not only, “Can this person win?” or “Can this person get things done?” Maybe the better question is: What have I/we been willing to excuse because this person seems competent? Drafted by Princess Faith Odo, refined with AI.

Read next

• Can Character Exist Without a Source?
• Competence at the Cost of Character in Careers
• What Do We Now Use as the Measure of Trust?