In a Hierarchy Every
Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.
Laurence J. Peter - The Peter Principle.
The Peter Principle is one of those satirical observations which never go
stale because they encapsulate uncomfortable realities. Suppose we take this
one a little further and apply some lateral thinking.
A widespread political assumption is that people vote for
candidates who seem to be competent, or not obviously incompetent. Seems reasonable enough but perhaps
it isn’t so. Political allegiances come first of course, but party political
allegiance seems to imply party competence over the long term. If parties and candidates
are to implement their election promises, then voters must surely assume a
certain level of competence in formulating and implementing those promises. Voters
are often disappointed as we know, but competence seems to be a general
assumption.
Yet as we also know, voters manage to elect incompetent political
parties as well as incompetent candidates. In which
case, perhaps voters tend to vote for parties and candidates who seem to be no
more competent than the average voter. Perhaps voters are uneasy about levels
of competence significantly above their own. They know they cannot weigh up smart
people, so superior competence may be seen as a threat. Which of course it is.
Perhaps most voters feel mild incompetence to be less threatening than too-obvious competence. In which case, to attract these voters political
candidates must aim to come across as mildly but not dangerously incompetent.
They must also belong to a mildly, but not dangerously incompetent party.
Something we see all the time but we treat it as a fault rather than a feature.
Conversely, in times of political and economic stress voters
may break ranks and vote for a higher level of competence or they may simply
abstain if their preferred party or their preferred candidate has not kept pace
with a temporary but pressing need for higher levels of political competence.
When the political and economic stress subside, voters may go
back to aligning themselves with parties and candidates exhibiting a more benign
level of competence, a level of competence not too far from the voter’s own.
When the outlook is benign, incompetently formulated
policies, incompetent aspirations and incompetent presentation are all
tolerated. Political parties drift towards the average level of voter
competence. As societies become more middle class and more receptive to foolish and dishonest political fashions, the average level of voter competence trends downwards. As a
direct consequence the incompetence of political decision-making trends upwards.
Hence climate change, political correctness and woke culture
have given us Trump, Boris and Brexit as emergency counterweights to some
obviously incompetent political trends. Will it last though? That’s the
question.
3 comments:
Remember that they are coming for your stove now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51581817
I think Boris is purposefully projecting a kind of incompetence, but only in the inessential stuff. Theresa May was the opposite, in that she strove to appear competent but was clearly out of her depth.
SpAds like Cummings and that kid who has just resigned are interesting examples of your theory. Do we want them to be stratospherically intelligent? The problem is that we can't tell that type of intelligence from bullshit or even idiocy. As has been fulsomely remarked upon, a "superpredictor" who couldn't work out what hot water his actions were likely to land him in is a rather odd beast.
Graeme - I wonder if Boris will turn out to be much of an improvement over Corbyn.
Sam - I'm not so sure about Cummings. His type of intelligence seems to be laced with bullshit. That "superpredictor" requires some explanation.
Post a Comment